Nazis, or just Misunderstood?

[Hortlund]

Hortlund, that statement comes from the reactions of the Italians, who did treat the allies as liberators in many (but not all areas). Now, I can see three reasons for this:

1. They realized that the promises of fascism turned out to be lies that caused massive destruction and loss (all the way back to the Spanish Civil War) and that they were happy to see fascism overthrown. Some were happy to become partisans and even established an organized military opposition. They gave Mussolini and his hoochee a pretty tough time when they caught him.

2. They were cowardly people who changed loyalties when the tide of the war changed (though, as I pointed out earlier, some did take up arms against the Germans and the loyalists).

3. They had no deep connection with Fascism from the beginning, making either 1 or 2 easier.

I believe it was a combination of points 1 and 3.

[/b]

Charon, please expand on how this applies to the Germans.

[babek-]

Let me say this a german who was born after the 2nd WW in a democratic West-Germany and raised in a liberal democratic system:

Under the special circumstances of the German Reich after WW1 (just to mention the "Schandvertrag" of Versailles) and the resulting economical chaos a radical leader like Hitler was a logical consequence.
He gave the german people a new (today we know a false) hope for a better future and the majority of the germans followed him.
Today we know that he has abused a whole nation.

But we have the luxury to know many (surely not all) facts and to be raised in a liberal system.

But what are we expecting from a youth living in the 20ties, feeling dishonored by the allies after WW1 and suffering by these facts and economical consequences?
German territory was occupied by foreigners - their once proud army (and it was an essential part of the german culture) was crippled to a small force which was not allowed to have an airforce or tanks.
Then a man arrives who aggressivly starts a counter policy. He raebuilt the army - and the allies dont react. He took back the occupied territories - and the allies dont react. He organize and mobilize the german people by demonizing an ethnic group like the jews - and the allies dont react.
So what does a youth from this time learns by this ? That this man made Germany strong again and gave the nation its proud back?

I think that I - under the circumstances of the old times - would also become someone who was called after WW2 a Nazi.
The circumstances formed the people - it didnt happened in few years but in decades after WW1.

And please dont think that the Nazi-ideas is only a german idea had no supporters throughout the world.
It was not that the germans was seen as brutal oppressors by many states in the region.

There were many supporting nations - and also many foreign SS-Units which fought with fanatism on the side of the Axis.
There were french, netherland and also muslim SS-units - so these were no Germans and nevertheless they also became Nazis.

Even after WW2 where the crimes of the Nazis became public there were still nations which helped highranking Nazis to survive on their territory - like Argentina or Spain and also the Vatican didnt played an honorable rule during this after-war-time.

But let me come back to a more important thing:

Its not a question for me how the people in the 20ties could become affiliated and fascinated with the Nazi ideology.

This I am able to understand.

But I absolutely dont understand why people of today, who have the knowledge of the history and who had been raised in more or less liberal systems, are still fascinated of the Nazi ideology and organize themselves.

There are neo-Nazis even in the countries where the old Nazis were killing the populations because they were defined as lesser beings - like in Poland or Russia.

So - again: This is something I absolutely cant understand.

[senna]

Cas there are alot more unimaginative brutes in the world than original creative  brutes.

[MrBill]

Originally posted by Oldman731


Well...um...how do you explain that it never happened anywhere else, and, in particular, that it never happened here?

- Oldman

I must assume by here you mean PA and not America???

http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/3145/wave.html

terrifying to say the least ... it needs only the right atmosphere to happen anywhere.

[Charon]

I think the parallels between the two are fairly clear. Both had fascist governments, both faced similar political and economic disorder before the governments came to power, both had strong popular support for the government during the good times, both were allied in a war against the West and East (though Italian involvement in Russia was more for show) that was largely focused on territorial ambition, both faced death, hunger and foreign invasion.

The counter points (certainly worth considering) could well be that while Mussolini had growing support in the populace, he did seize power in 1922 in a more aggressive manner than Hitler needed to solidified his majority approval after he won the first elections -- leading to perhaps less real support at the street level. However, by 1939 Mussolini’s  power and support were well established as I recall. Also, while both had strong propaganda arms the Germans took the Italian example and pushed it to new heights which could have helped keep the population more attuned to the party. Hitler also had more personality in the cult of personality department and early victories to cement his image.

In the end, I believe that while both countries faced similar military threats to their respective homelands, Italy had lost faith in fascism while the faith remained strong in Germany along with the hopes that the next V weapon would save the day. But, to be fair, this may not be the strongest point in that argument.


Charon

[senna]

Hum, well I like kicking colored peoples tulips and basically being an all around punk and bully. Also I prefer a 10 vs 1 fight.  I also like assault guns and I hate the gov etc... I'm gona start a new group and call it the "skull crushers"! Na who ever heard of them, how about Neo Nazi bla bla bla...

Instant world recognition even though they are loosers.

My 2 cents.

[Charon]

babek. Good post. At the time facism was also a popular idea in some U.S. and British circles facing depression-era pressures. I used to study the micro events, personalities and equipment of the war, now I find the political and social events behind the various conflicts to be more interesting (but a less exciting read to be sure).

The rise of Nazi Germany is perhaps the most though provoking since you cannot look on the German people as an "evil" people who were particularly different from those in most Western countries. They were more accustomed to a central authority governement so soon after the abrupt end of the monarchy, which helped, but if Hitler had really managed to screw something up before 1939 perhaps Nazism would haave been rejected.  

I can't understand today's fascination either, except perhaps that like in the old Brown Shirt days, neo-nazism gives the outcasts in society a sense of importance they couldn't get elsewhere. The mass appeal becomes far more frightening though, particularly in countries that should know better (and I'm not talking about Germany here).

Charon

[GRUNHERZ]

I find it funny how those living in an open democracy with a free press and access to varied sources of information  use the words
"know" and "the true horrors" in reference one of the most unfree opressive propagandist and closed societies of all time.
Its not the same guys, the goverment just said what it wanted people to hear and barred or suppresed or killed as many other voices as it could.  

No defense of anything that happend in WW2 but plese look at with a realistic perspective.

Or think of this just how many Americans knew of the Japanese internment camps during WW2,  or even many years after WW2?  This is in the most free country on earth.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by MrBill
I must assume by here you mean PA and not America???

http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/3145/wave.html

terrifying to say the least ... it needs only the right atmosphere to happen anywhere.

Sort of reinforces my point, seems to me.  Another poster said that there were, and are, various Nazi movements all over the world, and that, of course, is true.  But no other country has had a Nazi government.  There's only been one.  Same thing with the guy who says you have to view things from the perspective of the Great Depression.  News flash:  The Great Depression hit most of the western world.  But only one country went Nazi.

As for Versailles:  Easy and convenient excuse.  You lose a war and then moan that the peace treaty is one-sided?  Please.  

- oldman

[N1kPaz]

NAZI = BAD

 ZAPKIN = GOOD

So....


Support your local Zapkin!

[babek-]

Originally posted by Oldman731

As for Versailles:  Easy and convenient excuse.  You lose a war and then moan that the peace treaty is one-sided?  Please.  

In the late phase of WW1 Germany asked - especially the USA with its president Wilson - for an honorable surrender.

The treaty of Versailles was the worst thing what could happen to the Germans. It was not only one-sided. It was extremely harsh and destroyed the future of whole generations.
If I am right the germans had to pay until the 80ties horrendrous sums of money as a reparation of WW1.

Also territory was taken away  and - the most important fact the army was de facto destroyed - no airforce or tank units were allowed, the navy was also extremely reduced and the allowed troop-strenght wouldnt be enough to defend the Reich.
This army had a great tradition - it was huge, its officers - raised in prussian style - made a whole part of the german society. Now - after disbanding the army most of these officers were without work and suffering. They had learned many things but not to live a normal civilian life. So many of them resisted and wished a radical change.

Germany was also ordered to change its political system - so it became - like ordered - a democracy. But they didnt become democrats - how could they? They were raised in the prussian-dominated Reich, learned and accepted the hierarchical system.

The whole treaty of Versailles was signed at Compiegne in a train waggon.
I will come later back to this fact .

Nearly all the germans - no matter if communists or ultra-rights or normal democrats called this treaty a "Schandvertrag" a treaty of shame.

Even in my history lessons in the 70/80ties my history-teacher used this term.

It was a disgrace for every German and the myth of the so called "Dolchstosslegende" was also born: It was the thesis that the german army had not lost on the battlefield. The great war heroes like Hindenburg who destroyed the russian army at Tannenberg were ready to start a new offensive. Then the hideous socialists and communists ordered the german military to surrender, because they had the assurance for an honorable surrender.

This all was not true, but the people believed it - mostly because they wanted to belive it. And at time of the surrender Germany had indeed forced Russia to capitulate and there were no foreign troops on german territory.

The treaty of Versailles mad Hitler possible - without such a harsh treaty it would have become much more difficult for him to raise to power.

But because of the treaty the german economy was destroyed. Huge amounts of money had to be paid. When Germany couldnt pay these sums, german territory was occupied - like the Rheinland. On other places german hardware was taken away.
This also fueled the hate and the demand for revenge.

Then Hitler came. He acted aggressivly before the outbreak of WW2 - taking back the occupied territories, rebuilding the army by using the old prussian-educated officer cadres which suffered extremely after WW1.

He also was supported by the old war hero Hindenburg who was at this time th president of the German Reich.

After the german victory against France Hitler ordered that exactly the same train waggon where the germans had to sign their surrender after WW1 has to be transported to exact the same place in Compiegne.
There the french representatives had to sign their surrender - and after this he ordered the destruction of the waggon.

This act was highly appreciated by the germans - no matter if Nazi or not.

The good thing in all of this is that France and Germany were lucky that they had great leaders like de Gaulle, Mitterand, Adenauer and Kohl. These men ended the long hate of this two nations and started a friendship which lasts until today and I hope forever.

They also proved what great politicians could do in order to build peace.

The treaty of Versailles was one of the biggest mistake in history. It filled a whole nation with the wish to destroy this treaty - and they indeed did it by finally become destroyed themself.

So even a "Peace-treaty" could force people to go into the next war if they are treated bad in this.

We have to learn from this historical fact.

[straffo]

I'm sorry to interfere Babek but the feeling the German got in 1918 was the same the French got in 1870 ...
! I'm not wanting to start a "who started 1st thread "

This treaty was like the treaty of the previous war : loss of territory and huge ammount of money to give to the winner.
Before 1945 it was the way to go

Concening the Adenauer de Gaulle I fully agree it was a chance for all of us (btw you forgot Helmutt Schmidt  and Valérie Giscard d'Estaing )

[babek-]

@straffo

Sorry that I forgot to mention 1870. You are absolutely right: The treaty of 1870 - dictated by Germany against France - was the same mistake like the Versailles-treaty of 1918.

It forced the wish of the french representatives to cripple Germany so it couldnt endanger France again.

The whole thing only shows how stupid it is to fuel the hate of people instead of looking for political solutions which treat each side with respect.

We both are very lucky that we were born in our time - where the hate between our people ended and we could learn from each other in friendship.

[straffo]

so true

the bad think is that if WE have learned the lesson not all have learned it (read palestinian/ isrealy and lot of others ...)

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by babek-
The treaty of Versailles mad Hitler possible - without such a harsh treaty it would have become much more difficult for him to raise to power.

Babek, you certainly aren't the first to say this.  I just don't understand it, is all, because it seems to be such a non sequitur. It's even less understandable given what the Germans did to the Russians at Brest-Litovsk in 1917.  Now THERE was a one-sided peace treaty.  How could the Germans keep straight faces when they complained that Versailles was unfair?

If I accept the logic that a one-sided peace treaty is a good reason to adopt a brutal, totalitarian government, then I imagine that Germany and Japan should be going Nazi any day now, given what happened to them at the end of WWII.  Or, as Straffo pointed out, the French should have become National Socialists after 1870.  Lord knows what the Irish will do.

- oldman