5 ms·

It's not really all that wild when you consider that they were hired for their impressive achievements in various fields and not their loyalty to the nazi party

It's not really all that wild when you consider that they were hired for their impressive achievements in various fields and not their loyalty to the nazi party.

tmiku 2y ago
I don't think he's asserting they brought in Nazis for the fun of having them around. But it's surprising that while heightened ties to the Nazis would disqualify you from immigration eligibility, the most secretive circles of the state (and ones highly acquainted with Nazi brutality) were actively recruiting these people. Shows how deep the anti-Soviet derangement ran.
- zer8k 2y ago
  Derangement? Stalin was extremely suspicious of the west and even went so far as to accuse of us collaborating with Hitler himself. Not only that, the Soviet regime was excessively brutal. One of the worst in history despite not being mentioned much in modern history books. The treatment of captives during wartime, the Eastern Bloc in total, etc. While not a primary source "Soviet War Crimes" has a massive Wikipedia entry detailing just how bad the soviets were. At least related to WW2 alone we can look to how their treatment of the Polish was after pushing Germany out. They murdered Finnish civilians en masse during raids. Further, their deportation campaigns were enough to make most period despots blush. To believe that anti-Soviet sentiment was "derangement" is extremely delusional.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    They also had / have very deep spy networks of socialist sympathizers stealing secrets, including huge ones like plans for The Bomb. A significant amount of Soviet military “research” was done in the West.
0x12312812 2y ago
That applies to the superb rocket scientists. Others were hired for their expertise as spies, secret police and worse: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/us/in-cold-war-us-spy-agencies-used-1000-nazis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/us/in-cold-war-us-spy-age... "Some spies for the United States had worked at the highest levels for the Nazis. One SS officer, Otto von Bolschwing, was a mentor and top aide to Adolf Eichmann, architect of the “Final Solution,” and wrote policy papers on how to terrorize Jews."
- 0x1231246 2y ago
  The second sentence was supposed to mean: "hired for their expertise as spies, and despite having been in the secret police or worse". If that slip is the reason for the downvotes, fine. Otherwise, blame the NYT.
SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
In such a state, it's hard to be "respected in your field" unless you publicly pledge loyalty to the ruling party. This does not mean that all such people were all apolitical, just that their motives and outlook will vary. And that for people who were prominent when the Nazis came to power, there likely wasn't much middle ground between "leave the country, go far away" and "join the party".
- the_gorilla 2y ago
  This also applies to the US to a lesser extent. If you want to work in academia, there's a very strict subset of ideas you're allowed to even consider.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
    To which "ruling party" do you have to pledge loyalty to, in order to work in academia? An example of loyalty tests in current US politics did come to my mind, but it wasn't that one.
  - goatlover 2y ago
    Academia is broad, what strict subset of ideas would apply to everyone in the US?
    - the_gorilla 2y ago
      "Denial" crimes. There's at least 3 of them involving race, gender, and religion. Good luck getting funding or even keeping your shitty job if you commit any of these cardinal sins.
debit-freak 2y ago
I think what people find "wild" is likely the blatant contradictions in rhetoric between valuing humans and valuing "impressive achievements". The US and the NAZIs are merely the best examples of valuing the latter over the former. At least, for now. Notably, nobody in this entire comment section has been able to articulate how the space race has improved humanity more than equivalent efforts that focus on human quality of life, like implementing a public healthcare system. Whitey On The Moon rings just as true now as it did 60 years ago. Political posturing that happened to spawn technological development is a poor excuse for lack of coherent values. The fact that we achieved something that is truly admirable does not excuse for the general lack of giving-a-shit-about-humans that surrounds national politics. You know what else would be admirable? Taking care of our neighbors even if they don't contribute to the GDP.
underlipton 2y ago
It becomes again wild when you remember that the Cold War was only "necessary" because of US antagonism post-war. This isn't passing judgment on Soviet policies, only a recognition that conflict might not have been so heated if we'd learned our lesson from how the disintegration of US-Japanese relations had drawn us into the previous war. Essentially, the US seems to have a habit of being "forced" to ally with undesirable elements after some lapse in geopolitical awareness or effort leads to hostilities (sound familiar?).
- FredPret 2y ago
  Are you saying the Soviets took the “kumbaya” approach to communism and if only the US chilled out, there would’ve been no conflict? Surely you cannot believe that?
  - underlipton 2y ago
    No, because that's a straw man. The idea is that the Soviets were not looking to be in a half-century-long dick-measuring contest with the US, with the fate of the biosphere in the balance, and that the impetus for much of their expansionism and antagonism was the selfsame posturing that we claimed was our response to their antagonism. This is tantamount to the stance that Henry A. Wallace - the man who would have been president after FDR's death if not for the DNC pulling a Kamala at the 1944 convention - took (even if he walked that back amidst McCarthyism). I'm not saying that the US and Soviets ever would have been strict allies like we became with Japan, but a calmer entry to the post-war period might have cooled nerves and prevented the worst excesses of the Cold War. Do they seek the bomb? Do they ruin Afghanistan? Do we have flashpoints in Korea, Vietnam, South America? Are we still dealing with the negative ramifications of these events, decades on? And, in this hypothetical alternate history, did we have to employ and grant amnesty to literal Nazis to counter Soviets threatened by the Truman Doctrine? We can't know, but surely it's believable. Unless you think that mid-century communists were evil and irrational (and I suppose that you could (not me)).
- HideousKojima 2y ago
  >It becomes again wild when you remember that the Cold War was only "necessary" because of US antagonism post-war. Only if you ignore communist antagonism in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Up to and including their own allies when they gave their citizens a little too much freedom. I have several books in Czech on my shelf with a copyright date of 1968, a year in which far more books were published than years prior, I wonder why they share that year?
Insanity 2y ago
Yes, they were hired _despite_ their loyalty (and sometimes despite their war crimes). But not just because of their 'impressive achievements' during their time as Nazi scientists, part of why they were hired was because the US was afraid to lose them to the Soviet Union based purely on _potential achievements_. Some scientists even played this as a card to get hired by the US.
renewiltord 2y ago
If you take the Kolmogorov Option you’d better be Kolmogorov. Besides the creature being ended was Nazism, not its components. Some of its component individuals had to be ended (and if necessary, humiliated) to end it but that was the means.
aguaviva 2y ago
But it wasn't simply for their achievements that so many of these guys (many of whose achievements weren't all that impressive, actually) were hired. Rather, it was because they were perceived (by virtue of their Nazi credentials) as being solidly anti-communist, and hence, "reliable". That's where post-WW2 history starts to get wild again.

It's not really all that wild when you consider that they were hired for their impressive achievements in various fields and not their loyalty to the nazi party.

tmiku 2y ago

I don't think he's asserting they brought in Nazis for the fun of having them around. But it's surprising that while heightened ties to the Nazis would disqualify you from immigration eligibility, the most secretive circles of the state (and ones highly acquainted with Nazi brutality) were actively recruiting these people. Shows how deep the anti-Soviet derangement ran.

zer8k 2y ago
Derangement? Stalin was extremely suspicious of the west and even went so far as to accuse of us collaborating with Hitler himself. Not only that, the Soviet regime was excessively brutal. One of the worst in history despite not being mentioned much in modern history books. The treatment of captives during wartime, the Eastern Bloc in total, etc. While not a primary source "Soviet War Crimes" has a massive Wikipedia entry detailing just how bad the soviets were. At least related to WW2 alone we can look to how their treatment of the Polish was after pushing Germany out. They murdered Finnish civilians en masse during raids. Further, their deportation campaigns were enough to make most period despots blush. To believe that anti-Soviet sentiment was "derangement" is extremely delusional.
- FredPret 2y ago
  They also had / have very deep spy networks of socialist sympathizers stealing secrets, including huge ones like plans for The Bomb. A significant amount of Soviet military “research” was done in the West.

0x12312812 2y ago

That applies to the superb rocket scientists. Others were hired for their expertise as spies, secret police and worse: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/us/in-cold-war-us-spy-agencies-used-1000-nazis.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/us/in-cold-war-us-spy-age... "Some spies for the United States had worked at the highest levels for the Nazis. One SS officer, Otto von Bolschwing, was a mentor and top aide to Adolf Eichmann, architect of the “Final Solution,” and wrote policy papers on how to terrorize Jews."

0x1231246 2y ago
The second sentence was supposed to mean: "hired for their expertise as spies, and despite having been in the secret police or worse". If that slip is the reason for the downvotes, fine. Otherwise, blame the NYT.

SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago

In such a state, it's hard to be "respected in your field" unless you publicly pledge loyalty to the ruling party. This does not mean that all such people were all apolitical, just that their motives and outlook will vary. And that for people who were prominent when the Nazis came to power, there likely wasn't much middle ground between "leave the country, go far away" and "join the party".

the_gorilla 2y ago
This also applies to the US to a lesser extent. If you want to work in academia, there's a very strict subset of ideas you're allowed to even consider.
- SideburnsOfDoom 2y ago
  To which "ruling party" do you have to pledge loyalty to, in order to work in academia? An example of loyalty tests in current US politics did come to my mind, but it wasn't that one.
- goatlover 2y ago
  Academia is broad, what strict subset of ideas would apply to everyone in the US?
  - the_gorilla 2y ago
    "Denial" crimes. There's at least 3 of them involving race, gender, and religion. Good luck getting funding or even keeping your shitty job if you commit any of these cardinal sins.

debit-freak 2y ago

I think what people find "wild" is likely the blatant contradictions in rhetoric between valuing humans and valuing "impressive achievements". The US and the NAZIs are merely the best examples of valuing the latter over the former. At least, for now. Notably, nobody in this entire comment section has been able to articulate how the space race has improved humanity more than equivalent efforts that focus on human quality of life, like implementing a public healthcare system. Whitey On The Moon rings just as true now as it did 60 years ago. Political posturing that happened to spawn technological development is a poor excuse for lack of coherent values. The fact that we achieved something that is truly admirable does not excuse for the general lack of giving-a-shit-about-humans that surrounds national politics. You know what else would be admirable? Taking care of our neighbors even if they don't contribute to the GDP.

underlipton 2y ago

It becomes again wild when you remember that the Cold War was only "necessary" because of US antagonism post-war. This isn't passing judgment on Soviet policies, only a recognition that conflict might not have been so heated if we'd learned our lesson from how the disintegration of US-Japanese relations had drawn us into the previous war. Essentially, the US seems to have a habit of being "forced" to ally with undesirable elements after some lapse in geopolitical awareness or effort leads to hostilities (sound familiar?).

FredPret 2y ago
Are you saying the Soviets took the “kumbaya” approach to communism and if only the US chilled out, there would’ve been no conflict? Surely you cannot believe that?
- underlipton 2y ago
  No, because that's a straw man. The idea is that the Soviets were not looking to be in a half-century-long dick-measuring contest with the US, with the fate of the biosphere in the balance, and that the impetus for much of their expansionism and antagonism was the selfsame posturing that we claimed was our response to their antagonism. This is tantamount to the stance that Henry A. Wallace - the man who would have been president after FDR's death if not for the DNC pulling a Kamala at the 1944 convention - took (even if he walked that back amidst McCarthyism). I'm not saying that the US and Soviets ever would have been strict allies like we became with Japan, but a calmer entry to the post-war period might have cooled nerves and prevented the worst excesses of the Cold War. Do they seek the bomb? Do they ruin Afghanistan? Do we have flashpoints in Korea, Vietnam, South America? Are we still dealing with the negative ramifications of these events, decades on? And, in this hypothetical alternate history, did we have to employ and grant amnesty to literal Nazis to counter Soviets threatened by the Truman Doctrine? We can't know, but surely it's believable. Unless you think that mid-century communists were evil and irrational (and I suppose that you could (not me)).
HideousKojima 2y ago
>It becomes again wild when you remember that the Cold War was only "necessary" because of US antagonism post-war. Only if you ignore communist antagonism in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Up to and including their own allies when they gave their citizens a little too much freedom. I have several books in Czech on my shelf with a copyright date of 1968, a year in which far more books were published than years prior, I wonder why they share that year?

Insanity 2y ago

Yes, they were hired _despite_ their loyalty (and sometimes despite their war crimes). But not just because of their 'impressive achievements' during their time as Nazi scientists, part of why they were hired was because the US was afraid to lose them to the Soviet Union based purely on _potential achievements_. Some scientists even played this as a card to get hired by the US.

renewiltord 2y ago

If you take the Kolmogorov Option you’d better be Kolmogorov. Besides the creature being ended was Nazism, not its components. Some of its component individuals had to be ended (and if necessary, humiliated) to end it but that was the means.

aguaviva 2y ago

But it wasn't simply for their achievements that so many of these guys (many of whose achievements weren't all that impressive, actually) were hired. Rather, it was because they were perceived (by virtue of their Nazi credentials) as being solidly anti-communist, and hence, "reliable". That's where post-WW2 history starts to get wild again.