Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Dan Carlin"
channel.
-
Some of these problems have its roots in the ideas of the 1800's:
The nationalist movement in Germany was democratic as its upside, but its downside was that it was intolerant towards those who didn't wanna fit in into the German nation state like poles and jews.
The Conservative movement was tolerant about ethnic minorities and didn't bother hating on them as they did not see a unified Germany as a pressing issue, but on the other hand did they see the loyalty to the monarch as important.
The best solution would have been to combine the best out of those two movements and get democracy from the nationalists and tolerance from the Conservatives. But Hitler did the opposite and took the worst from both instead - the hatred of jews and poles and dictatorship.
When world war 1 ended was many disastsfied. Germans were not impressed by democracy. The hyperinflation 1923, the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 and the street violance that followed and the risk of a revolution was not fun, and to that did Germany have a great depression in 1930. So just like russia associate post-Soviet capitalist russia with chaos and the hyperinflation in 1997.. did many Germans regard the Weimar republic as a failure.
Ludendorff screwed up and lost the war with his failed 1918 offensive and invented the stab in the back myth afterwards to save his own ass from public criticism - as his own dairy notes shows that he did not believe in the stab in the back myth in 1918. Hitler however did swallow Ludendorffs lies, and blamed the jews and communists for the lost and sincerly believed that Germany was about to win.
There were some overlap between conservative patriots and the nazis, but there were also differences. They did both oppose democracy and they liked militarism. But Hitler did not wanna return Germany to monarchism. And he also seems to been a believer in Gobineau and Socialdarwinism - which was not as popular among the conservatives.
It was also a widespread belief in Germany at the time that the country was at a huge disadvantage towards getting rich and powerful, because USA and Britain which was richer had much more land. And many Germans believed that the only way to aquire the same status would be to aquire land somehow - which would not be easy after the war when she had lost all her colonies. Hitler was determined to back eastern Europe Germanys future colony, and starving millions of natives would be the solution to pave way for German settlers.
Many conservative Generals in WW1 could be said to have originated this idea, as the German victories in WW1 allowed the Germans to occupy much of russia, Romania and Serbia and plunder those areas. And the plan was to plunder these areas and kill off people so Germany could get more food for the war effort by stealing more food from the east and killing off people in eastern europe that competed with the Germans for food.
It should also be mentioned that it was rightwing parties in Germany that helped Hitler to push through the enabling act and helped him forbid other parties in parliament. It was all fun and good as long as the Communists and socialdemocrats were banned and Hitler was made dictator, but after that did Hitler use his power to also crack down on the liberal and conservative parties and then it was no longer so fun for the rightwing parties. But I guess they have themselves to blame.
However, the nazi movement did have a few influential left-wing figues. The most important one was probably Joseph Goebbles, who was a very hateful anti-semite and probably pushed the other nazis to be harder and more cruel against the jews
2
-
Dan said that genocide is not a new thing. He mentioned Djinghis Khan and the Assyrians. And in other episodes he have mentioned Caesars genocide in Gaul.
You also comes across as a person who not read a single book the last 10 years when you pump out fake holocaust denier numbers and talk about Maos and Stalins genocide which you know just as little about. Mao racked up much deaths, but it was not deliberate state policy like in nazi Germany. I am not saying he was a good guy, because I don't think he was. He was just a person who did not care if his own people starved to death during the great leap forward. And yes intent matters. A terrorist driving people over with a truck deliberatly is worse than a person who is careless and reckless but do not kill people deliberatly.
And a person who drives responsibly and tries to pull the breaks and avoid hitting a pedestrian - but the people ends up getting hit and dies anyways, is not the same thing as murder.
Intent do matter.
Mao killed perhaps 80 million people, but that is probably only because China is filled with lots of people. Stalin and Hitler both killed around 60 million people each. Since both of them started the war I hold both of them responsible for it. Stalin did the holodomor, the purge of the red army, the Gulag camps, the Katyn massacre, the mass deportations of poles, balts and people from Caucausus to Siberia did cause millions of deaths.
And Hitlers holocaust killed somewhere between 8 and 14 million people. And 85-90% of the victims were jews (according to Arthur Szulc) so it is fair to say that he holocaust was mainly a jewish event. The exact number is not known. Perhaps because most people died and could not testify after the war. For example did 98% of Polands over 3 million jews die under the war.
And those who saw it early from the beginning of the war did not live long enough to survive the war for the most part - as Dan said did the Germans typically shoot the sonderkommandos, so average life expectancy inside a death camp was just 4 months. And it was extremely difficult to flee from a death camp. Half a million people died at Chelmno, but only 2 people managed to flee and survive from that death camp. And the same was true for Belzec that also only 2 people survived.
So there were not many survivors. The nazis burned documents at the end of the war to hide their crimes so they should not go to jail for their crimes. And bodies were burned into ashes. And the ashes was used as fertilizer to grow pine trees like in places like Sobibor. So when you go there you will see nothing that reminds you of a place where hundreds of thousands of people were tortured and killed in gas chambers. But instead will you just see a forest standing there... and the trees have grown tall by drinking the blood from hundreds of thousands of innocent victims.
Personally I think that the holocaust was barbaric. With all human experiments done without painkillers. All the torture. The nasty way of killing people with gas... its just cruelty and barbarism. If they didn't like the jews they could have just forced them to leave the country. And if they did not want the jews to exist in future generations, then sterilization would been more humane.. or trying to invent gene manipulation to make the jews into aryans. And if they were upset that jews ate up too much food needed for the German war effort, then why not just force them to produce more food and use them as factory workers and let them die in the front as cannon fodder? Why use the barbaric method of killing people with gas?
I rather get shot or die from an injection and an overdose from morphine which is a painfree death when I die in my sleep without fear and scream inside a gas chamber that people are so desperate to get out of that they scratch the walls with their finger nails against the concrete and climb on top of each other.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1