4 ms·

Its remarkable how you can apply engineering / industrial methods to a mass killing facility so almost nobody feels guilty. Certainly the construction workers c

Its remarkable how you can apply engineering / industrial methods to a mass killing facility so almost nobody feels guilty. Certainly the construction workers can't be blamed that they built the crematoria, railways can't be blamed for transporting people to death camp, chemists for inventing the Zyklon-B gas or guards for making sure nobody escapes. Everyone just did their job pretending that it's OK if you don't hurt anybody personally. I dont want to judge them, evil sometimes happens just because it's allowed to happen.

lostlogin 12y ago
It's not the same or of the same scale, but every time a massive scandal comes out I think on this. The thing I have in mind currently is the BBC and its group of molesters and rapists that were protected and covered for. It also appears UK politicians were up to the same stuff, but it has been much more successfully covered up. The average moral compass is pretty damn poor when peer pressure rears its ugly head.
mariuolo 12y ago
Thing is it all happened in steps: Germany invades Yugoslavia, he is drafted, he's picked for Waffen-SS, he is sent to guard a concentration camp. At that point it's too late to do anything short of sacrificing himself. I have mixed feelings about this. In hindsight he could have run away at point #1, but how was he to know how things would have ended?
- coldtea 12y ago
  >At that point it's too late to do anything short of sacrificing himself. Millions of people have "sacrificed themselves", in the sense that they died fighting to get rid of the nazi regime, and tens or hundrends of thousands also sacrificed themselves by going into the resistance, aiding jews and other fugitives, sabotaging german camps in occupied cities, etc. There are lots of recorded examples of people who faced the firing squad singing or shouting for freedom. So he always had that option too. >I have mixed feelings about this. In hindsight he could have run away at point #1, but how was he to know how things would have ended? Hitler had broad mass appeal for over a decade. He wasn't some crazy dictator who suddenly imposed himself upon the German people. What he preached was actually a general sentiment, repeated by lots of intellectuals, politicians and pundits in one form of another, as was the "historical role" of Germany etc (come to think of it, not that unlike "Manifest Destiny" or the idea of "exceptionalism"). He had detailed his plans, including racial hatred and even extermination, and he had given several bloody examples. He not only was voted for in '33, but he continued to have great popular support even after the war started. It was not just silent forced compliance. Millions applauded those actions, even going out of their way to enable them.
  - encoderer 12y ago
    He was never voted to be Chancellor (or CEO by any other name). The Nazi party didn't achieve higher than 33% or so in national elections. That number still qualifies IMO as "mass appeal" so I'm not disagreeing with your point, just clarifying.
    - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
      I must correct you: The NSDAP did reach 43% at the 1933 (March) election. You could argue, that at this point the NS-regime had already taken over the power. But the NSDAP did also reach 1932 (first election) more than 37% and was the biggest single party in the Reichstag. Also you must count in the other right-wing parties that supported Hitler. With this in mind, you could rightfully say that the right-wing movement (together with Hitler) was popular in big parts of the German population of this time. Of course, Hitler only could seize power, because the other parties where in controversy and the whole country political unstable. But you also have to keep in mind, that huge parts of the population where no friends of Democracy and wanted to have the Kaiser back. Also: As much I know, even in those time, it was not possible for the population to directly elect the chancellor. The chancellor was "appointed" by the president. The precondition was, that he had a sufficient support in the Reichstag. That was the case in 1933, because other parties allied with the NSDAP. That is rather similar, how today the government is formed. In Germany, seldom one party can rule the country alone, even today when we have very much less parties in the Bundestag.
      - encoderer 12y ago
        "33% or so" -> 37% is about right, but unless my history is wrong here, I think you've fused a couple different events... In 1932 Hitler ran for President, and it was his name directly on the ballot not the National Socialists. He actually pulled just 30% of the vote, which increased to 37% in a runoff with Hindenberg. The point I was making is that he wasn't voted by popular support. And when he did ascend, Hitler wasn't appointed Chancellor because Hindenberg thought he had the support of the reichstag. He was appointed because Papen thought he could outsmart Hitler and that he as vice chancellor and Hindenberg as President could control Hitler. They were fools, Hidenberg was old and tired, Papen was delusional. Anyway, no question it was a fascinating and intriguing time in european history.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
thrw234902 12y ago
It was prisoners in camps who build crematoria and operated infrastructure. Soldiers were drafted (involuntary) and would get shot for not following orders. Some guards in camp were even Jewish. Nobody pretended anything, they just wanted to live a bit longer. Just compare it with US prisons or Gaza, everyone is fine with those today.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >It was prisoners in camps who build crematoria and operated infrastructure. Soldiers were drafted (involuntary) and would get shot for not following orders. If only it was that clear cut. Actually higher personel, as well as guards and soldiers were known to be extremely sadistic, from using women as sex slaves (the "joy divisions"), to cruel games with killing, maiming prisoners for fun, and everything in between. It wasn't just "following orders". There was sadistic enjoyment, and sense of a higher race getting rid of unwanted parasites in lots of these people. That some prisones built crematoria and operated infrastructure (under threat of death) is just a technical detail.
  - encoderer 12y ago
    Also, the camps themselves were built by businessmen. Hitler had strong ties to German business. He gave many handouts to business over the years, including labor conscription.
    - coldtea 12y ago
      Another perhaps little known to some fact is that tons of people, especially businessmen and politicians, viewed Hitler favorably in the US, until they entered the war. Including his views on Jews etc. He was a kind of their mascot against "the reds" and against unruly workers and working classes in the US. Also, contrary to some belief, before and even during the war, the US mostly could not care less about the plight of Jews at the time, even when it was known what was happening to them. E.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism_in_the_United_States#The_Holocaust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism_in_the_...
alexjeffrey 12y ago
There's a term for this exact phenomenon - Little Eichmann: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns This ties into the concept of the "Banality of evil" which plays out pretty much exactly as you described.
Amarok 12y ago
This premise reminds me of the plot of a movie, I think it was The Cube. From what I remember, it dealt with how bureaucracy could be used to perpetuate evil, without those involved thinking that what they're doing is wrong. Once the machinery is in place, inertia makes it very hard to stop: the cogs don't need to worry about the bigger picture, they can just keep on turning. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123755/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123755/

lostlogin 12y ago

It's not the same or of the same scale, but every time a massive scandal comes out I think on this. The thing I have in mind currently is the BBC and its group of molesters and rapists that were protected and covered for. It also appears UK politicians were up to the same stuff, but it has been much more successfully covered up. The average moral compass is pretty damn poor when peer pressure rears its ugly head.

mariuolo 12y ago

Thing is it all happened in steps: Germany invades Yugoslavia, he is drafted, he's picked for Waffen-SS, he is sent to guard a concentration camp. At that point it's too late to do anything short of sacrificing himself. I have mixed feelings about this. In hindsight he could have run away at point #1, but how was he to know how things would have ended?

coldtea 12y ago
>At that point it's too late to do anything short of sacrificing himself. Millions of people have "sacrificed themselves", in the sense that they died fighting to get rid of the nazi regime, and tens or hundrends of thousands also sacrificed themselves by going into the resistance, aiding jews and other fugitives, sabotaging german camps in occupied cities, etc. There are lots of recorded examples of people who faced the firing squad singing or shouting for freedom. So he always had that option too. >I have mixed feelings about this. In hindsight he could have run away at point #1, but how was he to know how things would have ended? Hitler had broad mass appeal for over a decade. He wasn't some crazy dictator who suddenly imposed himself upon the German people. What he preached was actually a general sentiment, repeated by lots of intellectuals, politicians and pundits in one form of another, as was the "historical role" of Germany etc (come to think of it, not that unlike "Manifest Destiny" or the idea of "exceptionalism"). He had detailed his plans, including racial hatred and even extermination, and he had given several bloody examples. He not only was voted for in '33, but he continued to have great popular support even after the war started. It was not just silent forced compliance. Millions applauded those actions, even going out of their way to enable them.
- encoderer 12y ago
  He was never voted to be Chancellor (or CEO by any other name). The Nazi party didn't achieve higher than 33% or so in national elections. That number still qualifies IMO as "mass appeal" so I'm not disagreeing with your point, just clarifying.
  - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
    I must correct you: The NSDAP did reach 43% at the 1933 (March) election. You could argue, that at this point the NS-regime had already taken over the power. But the NSDAP did also reach 1932 (first election) more than 37% and was the biggest single party in the Reichstag. Also you must count in the other right-wing parties that supported Hitler. With this in mind, you could rightfully say that the right-wing movement (together with Hitler) was popular in big parts of the German population of this time. Of course, Hitler only could seize power, because the other parties where in controversy and the whole country political unstable. But you also have to keep in mind, that huge parts of the population where no friends of Democracy and wanted to have the Kaiser back. Also: As much I know, even in those time, it was not possible for the population to directly elect the chancellor. The chancellor was "appointed" by the president. The precondition was, that he had a sufficient support in the Reichstag. That was the case in 1933, because other parties allied with the NSDAP. That is rather similar, how today the government is formed. In Germany, seldom one party can rule the country alone, even today when we have very much less parties in the Bundestag.
    - encoderer 12y ago
      "33% or so" -> 37% is about right, but unless my history is wrong here, I think you've fused a couple different events... In 1932 Hitler ran for President, and it was his name directly on the ballot not the National Socialists. He actually pulled just 30% of the vote, which increased to 37% in a runoff with Hindenberg. The point I was making is that he wasn't voted by popular support. And when he did ascend, Hitler wasn't appointed Chancellor because Hindenberg thought he had the support of the reichstag. He was appointed because Papen thought he could outsmart Hitler and that he as vice chancellor and Hindenberg as President could control Hitler. They were fools, Hidenberg was old and tired, Papen was delusional. Anyway, no question it was a fascinating and intriguing time in european history.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

thrw234902 12y ago

It was prisoners in camps who build crematoria and operated infrastructure. Soldiers were drafted (involuntary) and would get shot for not following orders. Some guards in camp were even Jewish. Nobody pretended anything, they just wanted to live a bit longer. Just compare it with US prisons or Gaza, everyone is fine with those today.

coldtea 12y ago
>It was prisoners in camps who build crematoria and operated infrastructure. Soldiers were drafted (involuntary) and would get shot for not following orders. If only it was that clear cut. Actually higher personel, as well as guards and soldiers were known to be extremely sadistic, from using women as sex slaves (the "joy divisions"), to cruel games with killing, maiming prisoners for fun, and everything in between. It wasn't just "following orders". There was sadistic enjoyment, and sense of a higher race getting rid of unwanted parasites in lots of these people. That some prisones built crematoria and operated infrastructure (under threat of death) is just a technical detail.
- encoderer 12y ago
  Also, the camps themselves were built by businessmen. Hitler had strong ties to German business. He gave many handouts to business over the years, including labor conscription.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    Another perhaps little known to some fact is that tons of people, especially businessmen and politicians, viewed Hitler favorably in the US, until they entered the war. Including his views on Jews etc. He was a kind of their mascot against "the reds" and against unruly workers and working classes in the US. Also, contrary to some belief, before and even during the war, the US mostly could not care less about the plight of Jews at the time, even when it was known what was happening to them. E.g http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism_in_the_United_States#The_Holocaust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism_in_the_...

alexjeffrey 12y ago

There's a term for this exact phenomenon - Little Eichmann: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eichmanns This ties into the concept of the "Banality of evil" which plays out pretty much exactly as you described.

Amarok 12y ago

This premise reminds me of the plot of a movie, I think it was The Cube. From what I remember, it dealt with how bureaucracy could be used to perpetuate evil, without those involved thinking that what they're doing is wrong. Once the machinery is in place, inertia makes it very hard to stop: the cogs don't need to worry about the bigger picture, they can just keep on turning. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123755/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123755/