3 ms·

What? There were so many different reasons, and apathy definitely wasn't one of them. You know what was the main driving force though? Anger, anger and resentme

What? There were so many different reasons, and apathy definitely wasn't one of them. You know what was the main driving force though? Anger, anger and resentment. Germans felt treated badly after WWI, the war contributions were extremely high, people were starving, inflation was higher than in Venezuela today. These were the circumstances that shaped NSDAP. Apathy? No, many German smart people were in favor of changes at the beginning. I simply can't understand all these Nazi analogies all around, as if people had no idea what the Weimar Republic was and all their knowledge of the interwar period is based on some Hollywood movies.

Khaine 9y ago
It wasn't just anger. It was also forged by fear of the rising communists by the upper and middle class, and the political chaos of the times. The far right and far left would regularly be in street brawls. Regular people wanted peace and prosperity. The NSDAP promised law and order, and to improve the economy.
lovelearning 9y ago
I downvoted your comment, because it just summarily dismisses the role of apathy. No doubt many people supported the nazis for all the reasons you quote. But why weren't there mass protests or resistance of any note against all the book burnings and all the targeting of jews in the 30s? The absence of any notable resistance to nazi policies before the war is a strong indicator of apathy. As a resident of a country that is currently going through ultra-nationalist propaganda, brainwashing and violence against sections of our society, I strongly feel apathy of the masses towards persecuted countrymen is, and has always been, a factor in all such events and can't be so summarily dismissed.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > But why weren't there mass protests or resistance of any note against all the book burnings Why right now there aren't mass protests against free speech restrictions on university campuses? Because a) a lot of people agree with them and b) people that don't agree with them and want to protest get intimidated and scared into silence (ironically, often by being called "nazis") by threats ranging from being stalked, boycotted, forced out of the job, bullied online to the direct physical violence. See how "free speech week" in Berkeley worked out. You say "oh, that's different - now it's for the right cause!". Surely, the Germans thought exactly the same. Their cause was stability, economic prosperity, security and restoration of the pride and the glory of German nation. Why wouldn't one - without the knowledge of what followed - disagree with it? They weren't ignorant of the freedoms they are sacrificing - they thought the goal is worth it. Hopefully, now we know better. > all the targeting of jews in the 30s Louis Farrakhan is ranting about "the Jews" right now, all the time, has been doing the shtick for years. Still on Twitter and even has the blue checkmark, interviewed, hand-shaked, etc. People still go and take photo with him (yes, including Obama, in 2005). DC city council member just days ago ranted about "Jews controlling the weather". Still DC council member, and his half-hearted apology was shrugged off by his supporters as "we all talk about in private, why can't we talk about it in public?" Why there are no mass protests? Because people think nothing will come out of it, it's just some crackpots bullshitting. German people thought the same. They weren't politically apathetic, they just didn't see the threat and thought the good things Nazis promised (security, stability, order, etc.) are much more important than occasional crackpot mouthing off. They were very wrong, obviously, but they didn't know it back then.
musage 9y ago
Hollywood movies? "wat" indeed. > Arendt argues it was not the penetration of public power into private life that made totalitarian rule possible, but the loss of public space and the banishment of citizens from public world into private life is what responsible for the phenomenon we called totalitarianism. https://diskopi.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/apathy-and-totalitarianism-hannah-arendts-philosophy-of-public-space/ https://diskopi.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/apathy-and-totalita... In all the the accounts of people in Nazi Germany I read, I encountered people looking away left, right and center ("If only Führer knew [he would be shocked]" in response to the Reichskristallnacht, as just one example). Like many German people pretended Hitler wouldn't actually be as bad as he promised repeatedly he would be, even Europe as a whole pretended e.g. there wouldn't be actually war until right before it happened. People were in denial and looking the other way all over. > These were the circumstances that shaped NSDAP. I'd rather say Adolf Hitler's lunacy and the people he surrounded himself shaped the NSDAP. Hysteric alienation, "nihilism made movement" to paraphrase Sebastian Haffner, and action for the sake of action might be mistake for opposites of apathy, as many people demonstrate here. But opposite of apathy would be more things awareness and responsibility, critical thinking, empathy, which were to to Nazi Germany like oil to water.

Khaine 9y ago

It wasn't just anger. It was also forged by fear of the rising communists by the upper and middle class, and the political chaos of the times. The far right and far left would regularly be in street brawls. Regular people wanted peace and prosperity. The NSDAP promised law and order, and to improve the economy.

lovelearning 9y ago

I downvoted your comment, because it just summarily dismisses the role of apathy. No doubt many people supported the nazis for all the reasons you quote. But why weren't there mass protests or resistance of any note against all the book burnings and all the targeting of jews in the 30s? The absence of any notable resistance to nazi policies before the war is a strong indicator of apathy. As a resident of a country that is currently going through ultra-nationalist propaganda, brainwashing and violence against sections of our society, I strongly feel apathy of the masses towards persecuted countrymen is, and has always been, a factor in all such events and can't be so summarily dismissed.

smsm42 9y ago
> But why weren't there mass protests or resistance of any note against all the book burnings Why right now there aren't mass protests against free speech restrictions on university campuses? Because a) a lot of people agree with them and b) people that don't agree with them and want to protest get intimidated and scared into silence (ironically, often by being called "nazis") by threats ranging from being stalked, boycotted, forced out of the job, bullied online to the direct physical violence. See how "free speech week" in Berkeley worked out. You say "oh, that's different - now it's for the right cause!". Surely, the Germans thought exactly the same. Their cause was stability, economic prosperity, security and restoration of the pride and the glory of German nation. Why wouldn't one - without the knowledge of what followed - disagree with it? They weren't ignorant of the freedoms they are sacrificing - they thought the goal is worth it. Hopefully, now we know better. > all the targeting of jews in the 30s Louis Farrakhan is ranting about "the Jews" right now, all the time, has been doing the shtick for years. Still on Twitter and even has the blue checkmark, interviewed, hand-shaked, etc. People still go and take photo with him (yes, including Obama, in 2005). DC city council member just days ago ranted about "Jews controlling the weather". Still DC council member, and his half-hearted apology was shrugged off by his supporters as "we all talk about in private, why can't we talk about it in public?" Why there are no mass protests? Because people think nothing will come out of it, it's just some crackpots bullshitting. German people thought the same. They weren't politically apathetic, they just didn't see the threat and thought the good things Nazis promised (security, stability, order, etc.) are much more important than occasional crackpot mouthing off. They were very wrong, obviously, but they didn't know it back then.

musage 9y ago

Hollywood movies? "wat" indeed. > Arendt argues it was not the penetration of public power into private life that made totalitarian rule possible, but the loss of public space and the banishment of citizens from public world into private life is what responsible for the phenomenon we called totalitarianism. https://diskopi.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/apathy-and-totalitarianism-hannah-arendts-philosophy-of-public-space/ https://diskopi.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/apathy-and-totalita... In all the the accounts of people in Nazi Germany I read, I encountered people looking away left, right and center ("If only Führer knew [he would be shocked]" in response to the Reichskristallnacht, as just one example). Like many German people pretended Hitler wouldn't actually be as bad as he promised repeatedly he would be, even Europe as a whole pretended e.g. there wouldn't be actually war until right before it happened. People were in denial and looking the other way all over. > These were the circumstances that shaped NSDAP. I'd rather say Adolf Hitler's lunacy and the people he surrounded himself shaped the NSDAP. Hysteric alienation, "nihilism made movement" to paraphrase Sebastian Haffner, and action for the sake of action might be mistake for opposites of apathy, as many people demonstrate here. But opposite of apathy would be more things awareness and responsibility, critical thinking, empathy, which were to to Nazi Germany like oil to water.