4 ms·

Much of what I read about Hitler in the mainstream media seems kinda black and white. This paragraph of the Economist article, for example "Woven into the prose

Much of what I read about Hitler in the mainstream media seems kinda black and white. This paragraph of the Economist article, for example "Woven into the prose are crude Social Darwinism and anti-Semitism that resonated even beyond Germany, as well as hints of the author’s murderous potential. Having been gassed by the British in the first world war, Hitler writes: if some of the “Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain.”" It is of course not mentioned that initially the Nazis simply wanted the Jews to leave Germany. Hitler himself said that if some other country would accept them, he would send them on luxury cruise ships. But of course, countries like the UK or US did not want lots of Jews to immigrate to them.

Throwaway1100 11y ago
"It is of course not mentioned that initially the Nazis simply wanted the Jews to leave Germany." This is often quoted wrong, and makes it look like Hitler wanted them to survive, just out of Germany. Hitlers idea in the beginning was to send Jews where they could not survive, to show that they only can survive as a race when they use other races for their benefit. The plan changed several times, where to send them, and ultimatly the plan was to send them beyond Siberia after Germany would have colonized the east. With losing the war and losing the opportunity to let them die in Siberia, and an effective concentration camp system in place the plan was changed to killing all.
- littletimmy 11y ago
  This is not true. Wasn't one of the plans to send them all to the United States or the United Kingdom? It was called the Evian conference.
  - Throwaway1100 11y ago
    It might not be complete, as there were dozens of plans, e.g. the Madagascar Plan[1]. The Evian conference was a conference organized by the United States without Germany[2], so it could not be a argument for a plan of Germany. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évian_Conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évian_Conference
    - littletimmy 11y ago
      Dude, your own link says this: "Hitler responded to the news of the conference by saying essentially that if the other nations would agree to take the Jews, he would help them leave."
jensen123 11y ago
I'm being down-voted. I wonder why? Maybe most people prefer to believe some pleasant lie (that their own country was "good", for example) rather than seeing some unpleasant truth? Or maybe I simply didn't explain myself very well. For example, in response to the Evian Conference in 1938, Hitler said: "I can only hope and expect that the other world, which has such deep sympathy for these criminals [Jews], will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy into practical aid. We, on our part, are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships." Back then, didn't the British Empire control like 25% of this planet's land mass? Surely, there must have been some space for Jews to settle? But no, they did not allow that. And the US was a big country back then, too, but they did not allow many Jews to immigrate, either. Seems to me that Hitler was correct when he basically pointed out that the concern of the US, UK etc. for the Jews was basically just empty talk. Please don't get me wrong here - the nazis were nasty, but the UK, US etc. back then were pretty bad, too. There have been plenty of apologies etc. from the German government over the years, but I wonder if the UK and US governments have ever apologized for their incredibly inconsiderate behavior towards the Jews back then?
- hussong 11y ago
  Maybe you are being downvoted because you seem to have no problem whatsoever with the idea of exiling millions of people solely based on their ethnicity / faith?
  - jensen123 11y ago
    I guess maybe you're right and that is the reason why (people making assumptions). However, I've never said any such thing, and no I don't think it would have been ok by the Nazis to simply exile the Jews back then.
Latty 11y ago
Disregarding everything else, the bar for moralistic isn't exiling instead of killing an entire group of people.

Throwaway1100 11y ago

"It is of course not mentioned that initially the Nazis simply wanted the Jews to leave Germany." This is often quoted wrong, and makes it look like Hitler wanted them to survive, just out of Germany. Hitlers idea in the beginning was to send Jews where they could not survive, to show that they only can survive as a race when they use other races for their benefit. The plan changed several times, where to send them, and ultimatly the plan was to send them beyond Siberia after Germany would have colonized the east. With losing the war and losing the opportunity to let them die in Siberia, and an effective concentration camp system in place the plan was changed to killing all.

littletimmy 11y ago
This is not true. Wasn't one of the plans to send them all to the United States or the United Kingdom? It was called the Evian conference.
- Throwaway1100 11y ago
  It might not be complete, as there were dozens of plans, e.g. the Madagascar Plan[1]. The Evian conference was a conference organized by the United States without Germany[2], so it could not be a argument for a plan of Germany. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évian_Conference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Évian_Conference
  - littletimmy 11y ago
    Dude, your own link says this: "Hitler responded to the news of the conference by saying essentially that if the other nations would agree to take the Jews, he would help them leave."

jensen123 11y ago

I'm being down-voted. I wonder why? Maybe most people prefer to believe some pleasant lie (that their own country was "good", for example) rather than seeing some unpleasant truth? Or maybe I simply didn't explain myself very well. For example, in response to the Evian Conference in 1938, Hitler said: "I can only hope and expect that the other world, which has such deep sympathy for these criminals [Jews], will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy into practical aid. We, on our part, are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships." Back then, didn't the British Empire control like 25% of this planet's land mass? Surely, there must have been some space for Jews to settle? But no, they did not allow that. And the US was a big country back then, too, but they did not allow many Jews to immigrate, either. Seems to me that Hitler was correct when he basically pointed out that the concern of the US, UK etc. for the Jews was basically just empty talk. Please don't get me wrong here - the nazis were nasty, but the UK, US etc. back then were pretty bad, too. There have been plenty of apologies etc. from the German government over the years, but I wonder if the UK and US governments have ever apologized for their incredibly inconsiderate behavior towards the Jews back then?

hussong 11y ago
Maybe you are being downvoted because you seem to have no problem whatsoever with the idea of exiling millions of people solely based on their ethnicity / faith?
- jensen123 11y ago
  I guess maybe you're right and that is the reason why (people making assumptions). However, I've never said any such thing, and no I don't think it would have been ok by the Nazis to simply exile the Jews back then.

Latty 11y ago

Disregarding everything else, the bar for moralistic isn't exiling instead of killing an entire group of people.