Jews and Germans

[Anonymous]

If you were a regular German citizen who survived the war, would you be eager or even willing to admit that you had serious suspicions about what was happening to the Jews and did nothing to help? Or would it be easier for you to say that you'd heard certain rumors that you entirely discredited?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have done a lot of research about who knew what was going on. I know of Jews who were in the Warsaw ghetto (and escaped) who did not know what was going on until the end of the war. They had good reason to knw, and they still did not know. There were rumors, but the Nazis did so much to cover up, and scare the --- out of anyone who knew. The Nazis also had the smokescreen of war covering up and confusing the whole thing.

In Germany, many people were clueless. One officer was sent back to Munich on mental health leave. When he saw some of the brutality, he broke down and had to be hospitalized. His wife discretely told a neighbor. That was the kind of information that was spreading in the community.

On the few occaisions that the Allies bombed concentration camps, they bombed the ones that wre actually labor camps. The information was not perfect.

The truth came out with the Vrba report, spring 1944. That is when it was clear to everyone. From then on, action was taken to slow the Holocaust, as with Hungary.

The Nazis put half of their effort into the coverup, and for the most part, they were successful with that. I am of the opinion that the war was fought to provide the screen and get access to the Jews. Secondary gains like land, gold, and slave labor from all non Germans were less important.
Please pardon the typos.

This sounds insane and nothing that any reputable historian on the topic would endorse.

There is a very good (but tiring) book called What We Knew. It has lenghthy interviews with Jews and Germans, and the same theme keeps coming back. That is, no one (regular citizens) was really certain.
The documentary Shoah has interviews of locals in Poland. They say that they knew, or were very suspicious, but they were scared for their own lives or in some cases, did not care for the Jews. One person said that even staring directly at what the Germans were doing in public could get a person shot. People knew to just look at the ground or look away.
Some of the prostitutes and girlfriends of the men who worked in the camps were the first outsiders to know. The men would talk in bed, I suppose.

They might not have knew for certain, or had all of the pieces of the puzzle, but many people definitely knew something very bad was going on and that it could be dangerous for them to know.

I don't think anyone at that time could have imagined the number and systemized killings of Jews committed by the Nazis. It is beyond horror to think that anything like that could be thought up and carried out.

[Anonymous]

The behavior of the German people is no ifferent from any other society where the majority turned a blind eye to the evil being perpetrated against the minority.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if some of the Nazi guards at the camps went insane. How could you, as a human being, do such things to other people, even people who are the so called enemy, and sleep well at night?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you were a regular German citizen who survived the war, would you be eager or even willing to admit that you had serious suspicions about what was happening to the Jews and did nothing to help? Or would it be easier for you to say that you'd heard certain rumors that you entirely discredited?

The moral responsibility?
Can we ask the Russians the same about Stalins purges and the Americans too about the internment camps for Japanese americans and Italian americans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always find it interesting that folks can have a reasonable discussion about the Holocaust, yet get super defensive and combative when slavery is the topic.

Is it because many Jews have been able to do well for themselves despite their history? While AAs have continued to struggle. So history seems to have more affect on the present day SES of descendants of former slaves than Holocaust survivors. Or maybe because the Holocaust happened in a foreign country while slavery happened here.

Hmmmm, your comment is offensive and telling. Many Holocaust survivors received reparations from Germany which gave them the ability to start anew. But I agree that it's easier to start over by moving to another country where white is considered the superior race. Kind of hard NOT to be successful under those circumstances.

BTW, blacks were oppressed for another 100 years after slavery officially ended. And this ability to sympathize with foreign matters makes me think about folks who decry kids starving in Africa while conveniently ignoring the fact that many US children go to bed hungry. I wonder why we choose to ignore the problems in our own backyard?

America had segregation, still has segregation in terms of funding and resources for public schools, university system based on family wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Today, many Germans reject any guilt/responsibility because they were not alive when this happened but I don't take that position.

I find this odd. How can one feel guilty or assume responsibility for something one has not done nor facilitated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Nazis put half of their effort into the coverup, and for the most part, they were successful with that. I am of the opinion that the war was fought to provide the screen and get access to the Jews. Secondary gains like land, gold, and slave labor from all non Germans were less important.
Please pardon the typos.

No way! Nooo, Hitler had that much animosity towards Jews that that was the real reason for the war? War is usually about resources. And if you get rid of people you think are your enemies then all the better. Not the other way around, right?

interesting point of view. Are wars fought because of natural resources of the need to annihilate the perceived enemy?

Americans annihilated the natives. That was a holocaust too

Most natives died because of disease agents carried by European settlers against which they had no immunity. This is different from exterminating people on purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have done a lot of research about who knew what was going on. I know of Jews who were in the Warsaw ghetto (and escaped) who did not know what was going on until the end of the war. They had good reason to knw, and they still did not know. There were rumors, but the Nazis did so much to cover up, and scare the --- out of anyone who knew. The Nazis also had the smokescreen of war covering up and confusing the whole thing.

In Germany, many people were clueless. One officer was sent back to Munich on mental health leave. When he saw some of the brutality, he broke down and had to be hospitalized. His wife discretely told a neighbor. That was the kind of information that was spreading in the community.

On the few occaisions that the Allies bombed concentration camps, they bombed the ones that wre actually labor camps. The information was not perfect.

The truth came out with the Vrba report, spring 1944. That is when it was clear to everyone. From then on, action was taken to slow the Holocaust, as with Hungary.

The Nazis put half of their effort into the coverup, and for the most part, they were successful with that. I am of the opinion that the war was fought to provide the screen and get access to the Jews. Secondary gains like land, gold, and slave labor from all non Germans were less important.
Please pardon the typos.

This sounds insane and nothing that any reputable historian on the topic would endorse.

If you could detail your response at bit more it would be helpful. Just claiming monopoly support from not-further-specified "reputable historians" is a bit thin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If no one knew, how do you explain the resistance movement in Germany AND Poland? Some people definitely knew. Of those, some acted courageously and others stuck their heads in the sand and just tried to get by.

It depends on what you mean by "they knew". Everybody with functioning moral instincts knew or should have known that the Nazis were criminals. But this is one thing. Another is to have been informed about the magnitude and operations of the holocaust. It seems correct to me that this was beyond reach of the large majority of ordinary citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Nazis put half of their effort into the coverup, and for the most part, they were successful with that. I am of the opinion that the war was fought to provide the screen and get access to the Jews. Secondary gains like land, gold, and slave labor from all non Germans were less important.
Please pardon the typos.

No way! Nooo, Hitler had that much animosity towards Jews that that was the real reason for the war? War is usually about resources. And if you get rid of people you think are your enemies then all the better. Not the other way around, right?

interesting point of view. Are wars fought because of natural resources of the need to annihilate the perceived enemy?

Americans annihilated the natives. That was a holocaust too

Most natives died because of disease agents carried by European settlers against which they had no immunity. This is different from exterminating people on purpose.

This isn't wrong, but it isn't the full story. Andrew Jackson followed that up with a policy of Indian Removal in order to have more Southern land to put under cotton. (Using slaves, of course. Indian Removal is a two-fer in the atrocity column.) We'd call it ethnic cleansing now.

We also deliberately starved people who were left (which leads to the Sioux uprising in MN) and tried to kill people via strategies such as smallpox blankets. At Wounded Knee, we deliberately massacre women, children and old people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Nazis put half of their effort into the coverup, and for the most part, they were successful with that. I am of the opinion that the war was fought to provide the screen and get access to the Jews. Secondary gains like land, gold, and slave labor from all non Germans were less important.
Please pardon the typos.

No way! Nooo, Hitler had that much animosity towards Jews that that was the real reason for the war? War is usually about resources. And if you get rid of people you think are your enemies then all the better. Not the other way around, right?

interesting point of view. Are wars fought because of natural resources of the need to annihilate the perceived enemy?

Americans annihilated the natives. That was a holocaust too

Most natives died because of disease agents carried by European settlers against which they had no immunity. This is different from exterminating people on purpose.

And this is not the whole story, but it does make a lot of people feel good, does it not?
Funny that this is still seen as a true story. The blacks in South Africa did not die from diseases when European settlers arrived on the continent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Nazis put half of their effort into the coverup, and for the most part, they were successful with that. I am of the opinion that the war was fought to provide the screen and get access to the Jews. Secondary gains like land, gold, and slave labor from all non Germans were less important.
Please pardon the typos.

No way! Nooo, Hitler had that much animosity towards Jews that that was the real reason for the war? War is usually about resources. And if you get rid of people you think are your enemies then all the better. Not the other way around, right?

interesting point of view. Are wars fought because of natural resources of the need to annihilate the perceived enemy?

Americans annihilated the natives. That was a holocaust too

Most natives died because of disease agents carried by European settlers against which they had no immunity. This is different from exterminating people on purpose.

Taking people's land, killing people's food supplies, and shipping people halfway across the continent are also different from exterminating people on purpose. But nonetheless not so good for people's health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Americans annihilated the natives. That was a holocaust too

Most natives died because of disease agents carried by European settlers against which they had no immunity. This is different from exterminating people on purpose.

I disagree. The natives were purposely exterminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Nazis put half of their effort into the coverup, and for the most part, they were successful with that. I am of the opinion that the war was fought to provide the screen and get access to the Jews. Secondary gains like land, gold, and slave labor from all non Germans were less important.
Please pardon the typos.

No way! Nooo, Hitler had that much animosity towards Jews that that was the real reason for the war? War is usually about resources. And if you get rid of people you think are your enemies then all the better. Not the other way around, right?

interesting point of view. Are wars fought because of natural resources of the need to annihilate the perceived enemy?

Americans annihilated the natives. That was a holocaust too

Most natives died because of disease agents carried by European settlers against which they had no immunity. This is different from exterminating people on purpose.

This isn't wrong, but it isn't the full story. Andrew Jackson followed that up with a policy of Indian Removal in order to have more Southern land to put under cotton. (Using slaves, of course. Indian Removal is a two-fer in the atrocity column.) We'd call it ethnic cleansing now.

We also deliberately starved people who were left (which leads to the Sioux uprising in MN) and tried to kill people via strategies such as smallpox blankets. At Wounded Knee, we deliberately massacre women, children and old people.

All true. I am not claiming that the near-annilihation of native Indians would not be a crime, far from it. I am only claiming that it is different from the "final solution" and the holocaust.