6 ms·

> The real thing that put Hitler in power to begin with was the horrendous war reparations Germany was saddled with from WW1 because it was "last man standing"

> The real thing that put Hitler in power to begin with was the horrendous war reparations Germany was saddled with from WW1 because it was "last man standing" on the losing side I'm not sure why this is socially unacceptable - I thought it was widely accepted that Hitler rode the economic woes into office, and used them to blame the Jews (amongst others). Now, if you start using that to justify what the Nazi party did, I can see why you might be called a Nazi sympathiser, but I don't see why that statement on its own is particularly controversial (if perhaps only presenting one factor). The question does remain though - would the Great Depression on its own (without reparations), or had Germany been in a better economy situation, been sufficient to result in Hitler's rise to power?

DoreenMichele 8y ago
My mother is German. She once said to me something like "Hitler was doing good things for the country -- until he went nuts." I brought that up on a forum. It isn't justification for Nazi atrocities. It is insight into how the people on the ground suffering hardship saw him in his early years. He was perceived to be a good leader doing good things for the people, at least at first. But, hey, my previous comment is already deep in the negatives, so I'm guessing HN won't be much more reasonable than Reddit was when I tried to make that point. People also seem to forget that the entire point of Milgram's experiments was to prove that something like that absolutely could not happen in the US. The theory was that there was something peculiar to the German people. His experiments proved the exact opposite, which was quite shocking at the time and likely part of why they are so very well known, though most people appear oblivious to the origin story.
- mikeash 8y ago
  There is a massive difference between saying that the treatment of Germany after WWI set the stage for Hitler, and saying that Hitler did good things for Germany until he went nuts. The former will find wide agreement, while the latter is just apology for Nazis, who were evil from the start, and just took a while to really ramp it up.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    No, it is not apology for Nazis. FYI: My initial comment was well into the negatives for a time. A lot of people simply cannot look objectively at anything related to WW2. They know how it ultimately turned out, so they basically ret-con it as "they were pure evil from the start." The problem is such mental models foster convenient explanations and justifications, not solutions for making sure such things don't happen again.
    - olivermarks 8y ago
      Most people's perception of WWII has devolved into 1950's type Hollywood western 'white hat' 'black hat', good versus evil story telling with little understanding of substance. Presumably this is because the generations that experienced it have died or are too senile to discuss it publicly these days. We will never learn
      - DoreenMichele 8y ago
        Following WW2, an awful lot of our fictional villains were German. That's changed relatively recently. Germans were the "trope" evil bad guy. WW2 is actually even inspiration for, say, Star Wars. Darth Vader and his troops are something of a cross between Japanese samurai uniforms and WW2 German uniforms. It's so deeply embedded, we don't even notice the connection. We don't question where those images come from. We just accept it as "Yup. Totes The Bad Guy! Looks Bad to me!"
    - mannykannot 8y ago
      There's a rather awkward question about when one thinks Hitler went nuts. To think the early years of the Nazi regime were acceptable requires overlooking the thuggery they used to get power in the first place, the brutal (and not secret) things they were doing to 'undesirables' already, and what Hitler had revealed of himself in 'Mein Kampf'. On the other hand, I agree that no nation or ethnic group can assume itself intrinsically immune to such things.
      - 8y ago
- watwut 8y ago
  Hitler followed the same politics beginning to end. His failed putch was a preview of how he treated enemies once he got into power. Also, economic only explanation ignores how much militarized Germany was, how much lost itself was impossible to stomach to them leading to "Jews stab us in back" myth. There is whole lot more.to it then just suffering economy. Hitler support was not.among poorest either, it was among artisans, owners of small businesses and such.
  - olivermarks 8y ago
    most of the German army (80%) was horse drawn and they also used bicycles extensively. They developed some impressive technology which they showcased for the blitzkreig propaganda but in reality it was clueless farmworkers given a belt with 'in God we trust' and uniform and ordered to march into Poland etc. Most of the perceptions of WWII, including the holocaust, have been shaped by post war US media. As an example the term 'holocaust' was widely publicized by ABC TV for their miniseries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(miniseries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(miniseries) Prior to that the term 'holocaust' was used to describe the Armenian genocide and you can still find Armenians who are deeply offended by this. This is not a defense of the Nazi party - I grew up in Coventry UK, one of the most heavily bombed cities in England in WWII (my mother was there under the kitchen table) - this is an attempt to address the reality that in 2018 we are largely influenced by the media in our perceptions of a war that was more than a generation ago, and that politicians were as labile and devious then as they are now, on both sides.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      You're right that somehow pre-war Wehrmacht has got a reputation as being something they were very much not - efficient and high tech. It was only 80% of German artillery that was horse drawn or more accurately only partially motorised at the outbreak of war. German infantry was entirely on foot (and frequently commandeered or stole bicycles). More importantly, Wehrmacht supply and logistics were woefully lacking mechanisation. The highly mechanised blitzkrieg was certainly partially PR, but was also a reaction the fact that the army was so poorly equipped in 39. They focused mechanisation on achieving full mechanisation rather than spreading it "fairly" across regiments. The had a small number of completely mechanised regiments, with fully modern equipment, and "the rest". Still, you can't escape the fact blitzkrieg was also effective. It was effective as tactics had not evolved far from WW1 trench warfare. It was but a very small part of the military whole. There were lots of shortcomings in the German war machine - for example, they never developed a successful 4 engine bomber severely limiting the bomb loads they could send, and range. As to holocaust, my UK history lessons, before this mini series was made, and books referred to "the holocaust" as the main term, occasionally referring to the Nazi term "the final solution".

DoreenMichele 8y ago

My mother is German. She once said to me something like "Hitler was doing good things for the country -- until he went nuts." I brought that up on a forum. It isn't justification for Nazi atrocities. It is insight into how the people on the ground suffering hardship saw him in his early years. He was perceived to be a good leader doing good things for the people, at least at first. But, hey, my previous comment is already deep in the negatives, so I'm guessing HN won't be much more reasonable than Reddit was when I tried to make that point. People also seem to forget that the entire point of Milgram's experiments was to prove that something like that absolutely could not happen in the US. The theory was that there was something peculiar to the German people. His experiments proved the exact opposite, which was quite shocking at the time and likely part of why they are so very well known, though most people appear oblivious to the origin story.

mikeash 8y ago
There is a massive difference between saying that the treatment of Germany after WWI set the stage for Hitler, and saying that Hitler did good things for Germany until he went nuts. The former will find wide agreement, while the latter is just apology for Nazis, who were evil from the start, and just took a while to really ramp it up.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  No, it is not apology for Nazis. FYI: My initial comment was well into the negatives for a time. A lot of people simply cannot look objectively at anything related to WW2. They know how it ultimately turned out, so they basically ret-con it as "they were pure evil from the start." The problem is such mental models foster convenient explanations and justifications, not solutions for making sure such things don't happen again.
  - olivermarks 8y ago
    Most people's perception of WWII has devolved into 1950's type Hollywood western 'white hat' 'black hat', good versus evil story telling with little understanding of substance. Presumably this is because the generations that experienced it have died or are too senile to discuss it publicly these days. We will never learn
    - DoreenMichele 8y ago
      Following WW2, an awful lot of our fictional villains were German. That's changed relatively recently. Germans were the "trope" evil bad guy. WW2 is actually even inspiration for, say, Star Wars. Darth Vader and his troops are something of a cross between Japanese samurai uniforms and WW2 German uniforms. It's so deeply embedded, we don't even notice the connection. We don't question where those images come from. We just accept it as "Yup. Totes The Bad Guy! Looks Bad to me!"
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    There's a rather awkward question about when one thinks Hitler went nuts. To think the early years of the Nazi regime were acceptable requires overlooking the thuggery they used to get power in the first place, the brutal (and not secret) things they were doing to 'undesirables' already, and what Hitler had revealed of himself in 'Mein Kampf'. On the other hand, I agree that no nation or ethnic group can assume itself intrinsically immune to such things.
    - 8y ago
watwut 8y ago
Hitler followed the same politics beginning to end. His failed putch was a preview of how he treated enemies once he got into power. Also, economic only explanation ignores how much militarized Germany was, how much lost itself was impossible to stomach to them leading to "Jews stab us in back" myth. There is whole lot more.to it then just suffering economy. Hitler support was not.among poorest either, it was among artisans, owners of small businesses and such.
- olivermarks 8y ago
  most of the German army (80%) was horse drawn and they also used bicycles extensively. They developed some impressive technology which they showcased for the blitzkreig propaganda but in reality it was clueless farmworkers given a belt with 'in God we trust' and uniform and ordered to march into Poland etc. Most of the perceptions of WWII, including the holocaust, have been shaped by post war US media. As an example the term 'holocaust' was widely publicized by ABC TV for their miniseries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(miniseries) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(miniseries) Prior to that the term 'holocaust' was used to describe the Armenian genocide and you can still find Armenians who are deeply offended by this. This is not a defense of the Nazi party - I grew up in Coventry UK, one of the most heavily bombed cities in England in WWII (my mother was there under the kitchen table) - this is an attempt to address the reality that in 2018 we are largely influenced by the media in our perceptions of a war that was more than a generation ago, and that politicians were as labile and devious then as they are now, on both sides.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    You're right that somehow pre-war Wehrmacht has got a reputation as being something they were very much not - efficient and high tech. It was only 80% of German artillery that was horse drawn or more accurately only partially motorised at the outbreak of war. German infantry was entirely on foot (and frequently commandeered or stole bicycles). More importantly, Wehrmacht supply and logistics were woefully lacking mechanisation. The highly mechanised blitzkrieg was certainly partially PR, but was also a reaction the fact that the army was so poorly equipped in 39. They focused mechanisation on achieving full mechanisation rather than spreading it "fairly" across regiments. The had a small number of completely mechanised regiments, with fully modern equipment, and "the rest". Still, you can't escape the fact blitzkrieg was also effective. It was effective as tactics had not evolved far from WW1 trench warfare. It was but a very small part of the military whole. There were lots of shortcomings in the German war machine - for example, they never developed a successful 4 engine bomber severely limiting the bomb loads they could send, and range. As to holocaust, my UK history lessons, before this mini series was made, and books referred to "the holocaust" as the main term, occasionally referring to the Nazi term "the final solution".