Hitlers Deports the Jews. (Plausible Fact or Negationist Fiction?)

Well...

First of all, the idea of shipping Jews to another country was nothing new. Like many of the horrible schemes of the Nazis, Jewish territorialism has roots in European history.

As early as 1885, Paul De Lagarde, proposed the idea of a Jewish state on Madagascar. Lagarde could be described as an "avant-la-lettre Nazi." His ideas helped inspire other Nazi figures.

Theodore Herzl, while arguing for a Palestine, also proposed lands in Argentina as a place to settle Jews.

Then you had the plans for a Jewish state in East Africa, that was cooked up by the British as an alternative to Zionism. Herzl did prefer Palestine, but he considered East Africa as a pragmatic alternative. This effort was nearly taken up, but the Zionist delegates who explored East Africa found its climate to be unsuitable.

In the 1930s, the Polish government themselves independently pursued the idea of the Madagascar plan. OTL 1930s Poland, while not the horror show of the Third Reich, was still not very fun for Jews. Due to the Great Depression and rising nationalism, the situation for all but the richest and most assimilated Polish Jews was somewhat difficult.

The Poles only canceled the plan because Madagascar didn't have the space for 4 million Jews.


This is my opinion but I think no one really thought the Nazis would go that far and so much stuff was going on at once when it happened. Even during the war I think many thoughts Jews were be targeted in some way just not the exact details. They probably honestly thought it was more pogrom level over what was actually going on. No one knew how far they would go or extremes of it. People thought these camps would be like gulags at worse not gas chambers and graveyards when they first found them.

You've hit the nail on the head. The march from Jewish boycotts to Yellow Badges to the death camps of Treblinka and Belzec was not an overnight thing. Even those who opposed Nazism never imagined the evil that was the Final Solution.

The increasingly horrible acts of the Nazis were directly proportional to several things: Their growing power, insanity, conquests, and desperation.

The Nuremberg Laws and all the early anti-Jewish was established only when Hitler's rise to power had become secure.

At this stage of racism, Hitler did offer Jews a soft landing of sorts with the Haavara Agreement. Which worked until the British slammed the door on Jewish migration.

In one TL I read where the Jewish East Africa plan was implemented, Hitler and other Europeans nations allow (and force) Jews to immigrate to Kenya.

As the 1930s progressed, and the Nazi policies became more and more unhinged, so to did Jewish migration become even more harsh. By this time, Nazis were stealing the property of the Jews who did migrate. Even if several major nations had opened their doors to these refugees, Hitler was forcing them to leave empty handed. This coincided with the annexations of Austria and Czechoslovakia.

By 1940, the Nazis once again reach new lows of unspeakable brutality as they persecuted Polish citizens of Jewish and non-Jewish roots.

The Madagascar Plan, unsurprisingly, had become far less nice than previous Nazi Jewish migration schemes. In fact, the Nazis seemed more interested in a Native American style reservation rather then a functioning state. Himmler expected Jews not to be able to prosper in an African island with little valuable resources.

And a potential shipping of Jews to the USSR would also have been utterly terrible too. Deportations to Siberia were also pretty deadly and horrific.

So yes, even if the Madagascar Plan had been implemented, or Soviet Jews deported East, it still would've been fatal to hundreds of thousands due to scarcities and the harsh climates.
 
Well...

First of all, the idea of shipping Jews to another country was nothing new. Like many of the horrible schemes of the Nazis, Jewish territorialism has roots in European history.

As early as 1885, Paul De Lagarde, proposed the idea of a Jewish state on Madagascar. Lagarde could be described as an "avant-la-lettre Nazi." His ideas helped inspire other Nazi figures.

Theodore Herzl, while arguing for a Palestine, also proposed lands in Argentina as a place to settle Jews.

Then you had the plans for a Jewish state in East Africa, that was cooked up by the British as an alternative to Zionism. Herzl did prefer Palestine, but he considered East Africa as a pragmatic alternative. This effort was nearly taken up, but the Zionist delegates who explored East Africa found its climate to be unsuitable.

In the 1930s, the Polish government themselves independently pursued the idea of the Madagascar plan. OTL 1930s Poland, while not the horror show of the Third Reich, was still not very fun for Jews. Due to the Great Depression and rising nationalism, the situation for all but the richest and most assimilated Polish Jews was somewhat difficult.

The Poles only canceled the plan because Madagascar didn't have the space for 4 million Jews.




You've hit the nail on the head. The march from Jewish boycotts to Yellow Badges to the death camps of Treblinka and Belzec was not an overnight thing. Even those who opposed Nazism never imagined the evil that was the Final Solution.

The increasingly horrible acts of the Nazis were directly proportional to several things: Their growing power, insanity, conquests, and desperation.

The Nuremberg Laws and all the early anti-Jewish was established only when Hitler's rise to power had become secure.

At this stage of racism, Hitler did offer Jews a soft landing of sorts with the Haavara Agreement. Which worked until the British slammed the door on Jewish migration.

In one TL I read where the Jewish East Africa plan was implemented, Hitler and other Europeans nations allow (and force) Jews to immigrate to Kenya.

As the 1930s progressed, and the Nazi policies became more and more unhinged, so to did Jewish migration become even more harsh. By this time, Nazis were stealing the property of the Jews who did migrate. Even if several major nations had opened their doors to these refugees, Hitler was forcing them to leave empty handed. This coincided with the annexations of Austria and Czechoslovakia.

By 1940, the Nazis once again reach new lows of unspeakable brutality as they persecuted Polish citizens of Jewish and non-Jewish roots.

The Madagascar Plan, unsurprisingly, had become far less nice than previous Nazi Jewish migration schemes. In fact, the Nazis seemed more interested in a Native American style reservation rather then a functioning state. Himmler expected Jews not to be able to prosper in an African island with little valuable resources.

And a potential shipping of Jews to the USSR would also have been utterly terrible too. Deportations to Siberia were also pretty deadly and horrific.

So yes, even if the Madagascar Plan had been implemented, or Soviet Jews deported East, it still would've been fatal to hundreds of thousands due to scarcities and the harsh climates.
It would either have to be before the war or Hitler and Stalin come to some agreement over the Jews after they divide up Poland. At least without a bunch dying. Stalin might give them enough food to make it to the Far East and probably force some too. Not pleasant but if given enough time to deport them east many do avoid death like otl. Another option is more open US immigration policy.

The third option is Britain deciding to go with the Kenya/Uganda plan and Jews being desperate and Hitler pushing idea goes for it. Hitler even gets them to allow Jews from all over Europe easy access to move there. Unlike otl, he even lets them take their belongings to get them to leave faster. He does a lot to encourage them to leave. During the war he could even keep deporting then to neutral but somewhat friendly fascist nations so they can be shipped to Africa. Hitler and Nazis would do this instead of gassing them given option. The Nazis were calculating. They rather just tell them to get out then waste gas and bullets which isn’t good for few more million Slavs they would be using them on.

The Jews avoiding the Holocaust would greatly change its identity and reputation in the world. You might have more anti-semitism in the west in long run. Deporting Jews from place to place is actually a trend in European history since Rome.

If they are deported to African I doubt they treat the natives well at all. They don’t even treat Ethiopian Jews that great in otl Israel. Nearly 15 million Jews during the interwar years and ww2 would easily overrun Kenya and Uganda demographically. The natives become the minority and probably pushed to reservations or ghettos for the most part. These places would develop super quickly and much more then otl especially if UK and Nazis come to agreement about Jews being able to bring their stuff.

Many are also skilled labor and Orthodox Jews can make up the more rural or agricultural population/labor. They would have cheap native labor and probably some Ethiopian Jews move over(they aren’t far). The Jews might be more hated by Africans and less so by Muslims especially Arabs compared to otl. Also a lot more Orthodox Jews are alive and growing especially when given undeveloped but valuable land.

I think the Zionist movement would still survive without Holocaust but have much less support and Jewish community would be much more divided then otl. Many people did not even consider themselves really Jewish or cares much about it until the Nazis put them into camps together.
 
It would either have to be before the war or Hitler and Stalin come to some agreement over the Jews after they divide up Poland. At least without a bunch dying. Stalin might give them enough food to make it to the Far East and probably force some too. Not pleasant but if given enough time to deport them east many do avoid death like otl. Another option is more open US immigration policy.


Stalin, by this time, was not really interested in accepting a Jewish population. OTL, he pushed the Jewish oblast, but then shut it down. The only way Stalin would accept Jews is if Hitler had brought the USSR to its knees in a former of unconditional surrender.

And again, a defeated Soviet Union would probably not be able to transport millions of people into Siberia under the best conditions.

The third option is Britain deciding to go with the Kenya/Uganda plan and Jews being desperate and Hitler pushing idea goes for it. Hitler even gets them to allow Jews from all over Europe easy access to move there. Unlike otl, he even lets them take their belongings to get them to leave faster. He does a lot to encourage them to leave. During the war he could even keep deporting then to neutral but somewhat friendly fascist nations so they can be shipped to Africa. Hitler and Nazis would do this instead of gassing them given option. The Nazis were calculating. They rather just tell them to get out then waste gas and bullets which isn’t good for few more million Slavs they would be using them on.

The East African plan would require butterflies in the early 1900s in order to implement it. It would most likely result in a large mass migration of Jews to Kenya. Not just from Germany, but the other conservative/reactionary nations in Europe.

The Jews avoiding the Holocaust would greatly change its identity and reputation in the world. You might have more anti-semitism in the west in long run. Deporting Jews from place to place is actually a trend in European history since Rome.

Yep. The narrative of the Second World War is less "Jews are the victims of mistreatment," and more "Jews got a ticket out of Europe before things went to hell."
 

Stalin, by this time, was not really interested in accepting a Jewish population. OTL, he pushed the Jewish oblast, but then shut it down. The only way Stalin would accept Jews is if Hitler had brought the USSR to its knees in a former of unconditional surrender.

And again, a defeated Soviet Union would probably not be able to transport millions of people into Siberia under the best conditions.



The East African plan would require butterflies in the early 1900s in order to implement it. It would most likely result in a large mass migration of Jews to Kenya. Not just from Germany, but the other conservative/reactionary nations in Europe.



Yep. The narrative of the Second World War is less "Jews are the victims of mistreatment," and more "Jews got a ticket out of Europe before things went to hell."
A Trotsky USSR? He had a actual Jewish background. He might be atheist as leader of Soviet Union but still might be sympathetic towards them and see opportunities in it? I doubt he works with Hitler like Stalin in otl. Both leaders would be at each other throats way more then otl and Trotsky would have to become more pragmatic of spreading the “revolution” to avoid alternative ww2 between them and everyone.

But Trotsky could become more pragmatic then otl and might still split Poland with Hitler but unlike Stalin actually use that time to build up military to fight the Nazis. Trotsky might not be opposed to playing sides either but what would make him dangerous is his fanaticism to ideology, stubbornness, and likely more popular support(he would run economics and reform much better then Stalin). Trotsky could bring in Jews as propaganda and for economic/development reasons.

The only major issue is Trotsky being actual Jew would lead to so much racist shit being brought up about the “Jewish Conspiracy” with USSR being headed by an actual Jew. Many will think that proof of what Hitler/Nazis are saying even in some circles in the west. Nazis could come to agreement to deporting Jews to USSR especially before the war and up until invasion but I think the Nazis would use this as propaganda to try an de humanize the Jews and Soviets to more to some people.

Any pod with Trotsky as leader of USSR often forgets how much that probably increases anti-Semitism especially outside of USSR. His political depictions would be very very racist and anti-Semitic even in the west too probably.
 
A Trotsky USSR? He had a actual Jewish background. He might be atheist as leader of Soviet Union but still might be sympathetic towards them and see opportunities in it? I doubt he works with Hitler like Stalin in otl. Both leaders would be at each other throats way more then otl and Trotsky would have to become more pragmatic of spreading the “revolution” to avoid alternative ww2 between them and everyone.

But Trotsky could become more pragmatic then otl and might still split Poland with Hitler but unlike Stalin actually use that time to build up military to fight the Nazis. Trotsky might not be opposed to playing sides either but what would make him dangerous is his fanaticism to ideology, stubbornness, and likely more popular support(he would run economics and reform much better then Stalin). Trotsky could bring in Jews as propaganda and for economic/development reasons.

The only major issue is Trotsky being actual Jew would lead to so much racist shit being brought up about the “Jewish Conspiracy” with USSR being headed by an actual Jew. Many will think that proof of what Hitler/Nazis are saying even in some circles in the west. Nazis could come to agreement to deporting Jews to USSR especially before the war and up until invasion but I think the Nazis would use this as propaganda to try an de humanize the Jews and Soviets to more to some people.

Any pod with Trotsky as leader of USSR often forgets how much that probably increases anti-Semitism especially outside of USSR. His political depictions would be very very racist and anti-Semitic even in the west too probably.

First of all, Trotsky was rabidly anti-Nazi. In exile, he predicted in 1933 that the Nazis would plunge Europe into another world war. He wouldn't be likely to many ANY deals with Hitler.

Trotsky would probably be the first world leader to build an anti-Nazi coalition.

Although yeah, Trotsky's Jewish heritage would be fodder for fascists.
 
First of all, Trotsky was rabidly anti-Nazi. In exile, he predicted in 1933 that the Nazis would plunge Europe into another world war. He wouldn't be likely to many ANY deals with Hitler.

Trotsky would probably be the first world leader to build an anti-Nazi coalition.

Although yeah, Trotsky's Jewish heritage would be fodder for fascists.
OTOH, wouldn't it be too much to handle for Hitler to make alliance with communist Jew? And how would nazi propaganda justify such move? Trotsky according to nazi view is worst kind of man-communist leader of Slavic state, personification of everything that nazis viewed as worst evil of the world.
 
I'm pretty sure Hitler and the Nazis' entire desire was "genocide the Jews because muh racisms and we're so evil that if we were fictional, we'd be called unrealistically evil antagonists"
 
The German public did notice when their Jewish neighbors did get rounded up by SS but they were more worry about war(being pillow bombed by the allies will do that. German cities were bombed heavy) and most did not know details of what would happen to them.

The thread isn't about German awareness of the deportation of German Jews, and nobody claimed the general population was or was not aware. That said, the above really sounds like an excusation. The first train to Auschwitz departed in March 1942; already by late 1941, German Jews, especially if elderly, unfit for work, or otherwise particularly unwanted, were being rounded up and shipped to Polish ghettoes.

Now, at the time, the Allies were bombing Germany, yeah - but by no stretch of imagination their operations could be defined as the "carpet-bombing" that took place in the later years of the war. Besides, especially in a country where news are just propaganda, one will notice only, or almost only, the bombing that hits one's city, and it's not as if every city was bombed every night. Plenty of German cities in 1942 suffered no raid at all, or maybe one.

Yet you think this is distraction enough not to notice that the Jewish neighborhood is being emptied, that old Frau Stein from the upper floor is dragged out kicking and screaming in the night by Gestapo goons, and that cattle wagons are being packed with these people?
The Reichsbahn employees, alone, who were involved in the transports numbered in the tens of thousands. The trains were often left waiting in the marshalling yards to make room for military trains, and no railwayman passing by would be able not to hear the cries for help and not to smell the stench. Up to a hundred people packed in a cattle car for days, no water or food provided, and one bucket for latrine. And the Reichsbahn employee goes by and thinks, oh, nothing amiss here.

It's easy not to notice something if you really don't want to.
 
First off.

I am not a historical negationist, my paternal grandfather was born in a displaced persons camp in Germany after the end of WW2, his parents fled across the USSR from Poland to Uzbekistan then back after Germans burned the Polish village of Brok. Not that that proves anything but I have absolutely no sympathy for Holocaust Negationism, however I have heard repeatedly the idea that atleast some Nazi Party higher-ups had formulated some ideas for deporting Jewish people to some far away land where they could be put in isolation away from Aryan peoples. This appears to be reflected in such concepts as the Madagascar plans, which also took as granted mass death caused from the deportations, so even so it remains a justification for mass killing. I have also heard the notion that the Holocaust was planned as a result of WW2 so that Hitler could be rid of the Jews faster without having to wait, this seems unlikely to me.

So lets propose this
1. Nazis win WW2 early
2. Germany occupies or controls vast empty space with room for potential deportees, lets say Siberia

So would in this scenario, regardless of its likeliness, would Hitler and the Nazi's still commence with the extermination of the Jews, beyond the mass deaths these deportations would entail?

My understanding of the Nazi position on the Jews was that it end up radicalizing more and more over time. It’s something you often see in closed cliques who start with some radical and similar position on a issue and no internal opposition to it, it becomes more and more extreme over time. A good example of the Nazi really didn’t have a coherent and unified vision from the start, is the whole “Work sets you free” above the entrance of many KZ and extermination camps, it made no sense in the context of what the camps really were, and it didn’t seem to have been created to mock the prisoners either.
 
OTOH, wouldn't it be too much to handle for Hitler to make alliance with communist Jew? And how would nazi propaganda justify such move? Trotsky according to nazi view is worst kind of man-communist leader of Slavic state, personification of everything that nazis viewed as worst evil of the world.

Yep. Hitler could negotiate with the Georgian Stalin, but not a Jewish Trotsky. There was little chance for even an alliance of convenience between the two. Hitler would not compromise his anti-Semitic beliefs for even a moment.

I'm pretty sure Hitler and the Nazis' entire desire was "genocide the Jews because muh racisms and we're so evil that if we were fictional, we'd be called unrealistically evil antagonists"

Nazism was when several pernicious forces in Western society -imperialism, economic interests, paranoia, Social Darwinism, nationalism, racism, eugenics- intersected to create a truly terrible nightmare.

It's easy not to notice something if you really don't want to.

I think what your referring to is a conspiracy of silence: when a community makes an unspoken agreement to ignore and not discuss a crime being committed.

American history as numerous examples of horrific events that are covered up, because it serves the political interests for those events not to be mentioned. Like the Tulsa Massacre, or the mistreat of Mexicans during World War I.

My understanding of the Nazi position on the Jews was that it end up radicalizing more and more over time. It’s something you often see in closed cliques who start with some radical and similar position on a issue and no internal opposition to it, it becomes more and more extreme over time. A good example of the Nazi really didn’t have a coherent and unified vision from the start, is the whole “Work sets you free” above the entrance of many KZ and extermination camps, it made no sense in the context of what the camps really were, and it didn’t seem to have been created to mock the prisoners either.

That's what I said: had their been some kind of territory that accepted Jews, the Nazis would have probably just shipped them there. But as time went on, the Nazis gained more and more, their madness only grew higher and higher.
 
I think what your referring to is a conspiracy of silence: when a community makes an unspoken agreement to ignore and not discuss a crime being committed.

American history as numerous examples of horrific events that are covered up, because it serves the political interests for those events not to be mentioned. Like the Tulsa Massacre, or the mistreat of Mexicans during World War I.

THE NEW YORK TIMES June 2, 1921
Dateline: Oklahoma City, June 1, 1921
85 WHITES AND NEGROES DIE IN TULSA RIOTS AS 3,000 ARMED MEN BATTLE IN STREETS; 30 BLOCKS BURNED, MILITARY RULE IN CITY
Series of Fierce Combats
Angered Whites Surround Negro Quarter and Set It on Fire
THOUSANDS FLEE IN TERROR
Passing Trains Hit by Volleys in Battles at Railway Stations
TROOPS RUSHED TO THE CITY

DER VÖLKISCHER BEOBACHTER February 16, 1942
Dateline: Auschwitz, February 15, 1942
...
...
...
crickets.
 
DER VÖLKISCHER BEOBACHTER February 16, 1942
Dateline: Auschwitz, February 15, 1942
...
...
...
crickets.

There was still the Red Cross which even the German people respected and....

In an attempt to dispel the rumours of the mass murder of Jews, the Nazi authorities invited a Red Cross delegation to visit the Theresienstadt camp on 23 June 1943. In order to deceive the Red Cross, the Nazis adapted the camp into a model Jewish town.

They covered up the gruesome conditions of life in the camp. They planted trees and established gardens and set up play areas for children. There was even a bank and a cafe. However, there was no food in the cafe; nor was there any money in the bank. A film was made showing cultural life in the camp including wonderful concerts.

Following the visit, the delegation of the Red Cross reported that it had been impressed by the condition of the Jews in Theresienstadt. The reality was that, after the Red Cross left, the people who had participated in the film were sent to Auschwitz-Birkenau and murdered.

https://www.theholocaustexplained.o...individuals-do/how-did-the-red-cross-respond/

Potemkin concentration camps filmed for German audiences as well as international consumption.
 
Last edited:
First of all, Trotsky was rabidly anti-Nazi. In exile, he predicted in 1933 that the Nazis would plunge Europe into another world war. He wouldn't be likely to many ANY deals with Hitler.

Trotsky would probably be the first world leader to build an anti-Nazi coalition.

Although yeah, Trotsky's Jewish heritage would be fodder for fascists.
The thread isn't about German awareness of the deportation of German Jews, and nobody claimed the general population was or was not aware. That said, the above really sounds like an excusation. The first train to Auschwitz departed in March 1942; already by late 1941, German Jews, especially if elderly, unfit for work, or otherwise particularly unwanted, were being rounded up and shipped to Polish ghettoes.

Now, at the time, the Allies were bombing Germany, yeah - but by no stretch of imagination their operations could be defined as the "carpet-bombing" that took place in the later years of the war. Besides, especially in a country where news are just propaganda, one will notice only, or almost only, the bombing that hits one's city, and it's not as if every city was bombed every night. Plenty of German cities in 1942 suffered no raid at all, or maybe one.

Yet you think this is distraction enough not to notice that the Jewish neighborhood is being emptied, that old Frau Stein from the upper floor is dragged out kicking and screaming in the night by Gestapo goons, and that cattle wagons are being packed with these people?
The Reichsbahn employees, alone, who were involved in the transports numbered in the tens of thousands. The trains were often left waiting in the marshalling yards to make room for military trains, and no railwayman passing by would be able not to hear the cries for help and not to smell the stench. Up to a hundred people packed in a cattle car for days, no water or food provided, and one bucket for latrine. And the Reichsbahn employee goes by and thinks, oh, nothing amiss here.

It's easy not to notice something if you really don't want to.
good point, but my point by the war the civilian population doesn’t really have as much say anymore and more worried about themselves. Self preservation does usually kick in during war time more especially in police states.

I’m not directing anything at anybody but just saying if people know the SS is doing this do they themselves want to be put on their hit list or be even on their radar. They are literal Nazis and civilians passiveness has caused them their freedom in general especially to oppose. Do you think that poor North Korean farmer going to say anything when he sees a military officer executed someone? Or Chinese people who see child labor in factories? Or Soviets under Stalin under threat of deportation to Siberian gulag?

Many don’t like it. Even some of the grunts doing it. But some people especially in German culture were taught to respect and follow authority to a strict and somewhat unquestioning degree. You can see how that could be very bad if someone like Nazis take power. Some people are followers. They only know how to follow. Not always how to be more of individual or leader. They feel uncomfortable in situations like this and don’t know what to do. This leads to either self preservation or crowd following.

Also, if you actual know what going on in these camps or have general ideas about Nazis more dark intentions do you truly trust them to keep their word especially after the war unless you kiss their asses. They might tell you it is optional to do many of these war crimes East like execution of civilians and other duties but how much would they truly stick to that. The men also do take in consideration what fellow soldiers will treat and see them after(don’t won’t to seem un loyal and weak to them). The Nazis probably do blacklist these type of people at best and might go after them after the war if they win.

If you know the Nazis are gassing people who are innocent women, children, and elderly wouldn’t you worry somewhat about what any lack of loyalty or show of strength means for you and your love ones in this regime? You know these people are innocent and Nazis have no reason to gas them besides hate. Even if the Nazis tell you this job is optional when offered it do you really want them to think your not on board with this? The Nazis did keep up with small petty shit like that and have no problem bringing it up later.

This regime beheaded people over pissing them off. The Nazis hold grudges and keeps up with who most loyal(kiss asses) and who is less so. No one wants the SS knocking at their door after the war if they win. Many German troops especially out east fought to bitter end because they knew what they did was fuck up but they felt too deep in by the war and knew if they lost German civilians would likely suffer from pissed Soviets and allies. It’s self preservation at its worse.
 
The tvtropes usefull notes article about the holocaust is showing quite a few contributing mechanisms wich aren't explained by pure willingness to obey.
Mainly, among the various institutions a competition to provide quick and cheap resolutions or be relegated to obscurity in the piranha pond politics of the reich, and among the executing formations peer pressure as an enabling mechanism, despite (as discussed on the example of oder police batalion 101) knowing that to kill was against the ten commandments... with the eprcentages between the willing, the enabling and the denieing being about the same as later in the standford prison experiment.
Overall a long but good read to have before plunging into the discussion.
 
THE NEW YORK TIMES June 2, 1921
Dateline: Oklahoma City, June 1, 1921
85 WHITES AND NEGROES DIE IN TULSA RIOTS AS 3,000 ARMED MEN BATTLE IN STREETS; 30 BLOCKS BURNED, MILITARY RULE IN CITY
Series of Fierce Combats
Angered Whites Surround Negro Quarter and Set It on Fire
THOUSANDS FLEE IN TERROR
Passing Trains Hit by Volleys in Battles at Railway Stations
TROOPS RUSHED TO THE CITY


Yes...

But for decades afterwards, hardly anyone talked about it. Tulsa refused to acknowledge the incident as late as 1996.


There was still the Red Cross which even the German people respected and....



Potemkin concentration camps filmed for German audiences as well as international consumption.

It gets even worse then that.

Heinrich Himmler, when he cravely tried to negotiate peace, claimed the death toll in the camps had been the result of typhus.

Not only did Himmler commit these crimes, he had the nerve to try and deny they ever happened.

good point, but my point by the war the civilian population doesn’t really have as much say anymore and more worried about themselves. Self preservation does usually kick in during war time more especially in police states.

I’m not directing anything at anybody but just saying if people know the SS is doing this do they themselves want to be put on their hit list or be even on their radar. They are literal Nazis and civilians passiveness has caused them their freedom in general especially to oppose. Do you think that poor North Korean farmer going to say anything when he sees a military officer executed someone? Or Chinese people who see child labor in factories? Or Soviets under Stalin under threat of deportation to Siberian gulag?

Many don’t like it. Even some of the grunts doing it. But some people especially in German culture were taught to respect and follow authority to a strict and somewhat unquestioning degree. You can see how that could be very bad if someone like Nazis take power. Some people are followers. They only know how to follow. Not always how to be more of individual or leader. They feel uncomfortable in situations like this and don’t know what to do. This leads to either self preservation or crowd following.

Also, if you actual know what going on in these camps or have general ideas about Nazis more dark intentions do you truly trust them to keep their word especially after the war unless you kiss their asses. They might tell you it is optional to do many of these war crimes East like execution of civilians and other duties but how much would they truly stick to that. The men also do take in consideration what fellow soldiers will treat and see them after(don’t won’t to seem un loyal and weak to them). The Nazis probably do blacklist these type of people at best and might go after them after the war if they win.

If you know the Nazis are gassing people who are innocent women, children, and elderly wouldn’t you worry somewhat about what any lack of loyalty or show of strength means for you and your love ones in this regime? You know these people are innocent and Nazis have no reason to gas them besides hate. Even if the Nazis tell you this job is optional when offered it do you really want them to think your not on board with this? The Nazis did keep up with small petty shit like that and have no problem bringing it up later.

This regime beheaded people over pissing them off. The Nazis hold grudges and keeps up with who most loyal(kiss asses) and who is less so. No one wants the SS knocking at their door after the war if they win. Many German troops especially out east fought to bitter end because they knew what they did was fuck up but they felt too deep in by the war and knew if they lost German civilians would likely suffer from pissed Soviets and allies. It’s self preservation at its worse.

I think of the Nazis as a cancer cell.

Outwardly, they were a part of the Germany. They seemingly embodied the values of pre-war German society: militarism, nationalism, racism, family values, etc. The Catholic and Protestants, themselves propagators of anti-Semitic tropes, and the militarists, themselves traffickers in propaganda like the "stab in the back myth" happily agreed with Nazism.

The Nazis, it appeared, revived the German economy, brought back German pride, and seemingly made Germany a strong nation. That's why the conservatives and middle class who initially were wary of the Nazis suddenly began to see Hitler as the man who had the...right idea.

No one could detect that under the surface, they were a demented and diseased version of Germany identity, and they were slowly rotting Germany from the inside out. Until finally, they consumed the German state, and used it to build factories of death.

So by the time war breaks out, Germans are fighting for what, in their minds, they believe to be right.

Remember, you didn't have to be a member of the SS to do horrible shit. The average Wehrmacht officer was still responsible for evil shit that happened on the Eastern Front.

Germans didn't chose evil. Evil cloaked itself with an image of morality.
 

Yes...

But for decades afterwards, hardly anyone talked about it. Tulsa refused to acknowledge the incident as late as 1996.




It gets even worse then that.

Heinrich Himmler, when he cravely tried to negotiate peace, claimed the death toll in the camps had been the result of typhus.

Not only did Himmler commit these crimes, he had the nerve to try and deny they ever happened.



I think of the Nazis as a cancer cell.

Outwardly, they were a part of the Germany. They seemingly embodied the values of pre-war German society: militarism, nationalism, racism, family values, etc. The Catholic and Protestants, themselves propagators of anti-Semitic tropes, and the militarists, themselves traffickers in propaganda like the "stab in the back myth" happily agreed with Nazism.

The Nazis, it appeared, revived the German economy, brought back German pride, and seemingly made Germany a strong nation. That's why the conservatives and middle class who initially were wary of the Nazis suddenly began to see Hitler as the man who had the...right idea.

No one could detect that under the surface, they were a demented and diseased version of Germany identity, and they were slowly rotting Germany from the inside out. Until finally, they consumed the German state, and used it to build factories of death.

So by the time war breaks out, Germans are fighting for what, in their minds, they believe to be right.

Remember, you didn't have to be a member of the SS to do horrible shit. The average Wehrmacht officer was still responsible for evil shit that happened on the Eastern Front.

Germans didn't chose evil. Evil cloaked itself with an image of morality.
That is good way to put. The old guard did help with the rise of Nazis greatly especially as ally against the west but like one said they regretted that later on when the Nazis took power from them too.

Nazis view among right was a bit of a roller coaster. They started out as seen as right wing radicals then was seen as people that could be “moderate” by the right then as over aggressive then as the role model when Nazis did well in war then finally as a cancer near the end.

The right didn’t even realize the radical threat of Nazis until they starting silencing them like they did to people before them. The old guard literally handed the Nazis power due to fear of left wing politics.
 
That is good way to put. The old guard did help with the rise of Nazis greatly especially as ally against the west but like one said they regretted that later on when the Nazis took power from them too.

Nazis view among right was a bit of a roller coaster. They started out as seen as right wing radicals then was seen as people that could be “moderate” by the right then as over aggressive then as the role model when Nazis did well in war then finally as a cancer near the end.

The right didn’t even realize the radical threat of Nazis until they starting silencing them like they did to people before them. The old guard literally handed the Nazis power due to fear of left wing politics.

It is more then just that.

Our image of Hitler is that of a real-life Satan: a man who manipulated millions into committing the most heinous crimes ever. This image is aided by his blisteringly angry speeches and furious rants.

But with this image of Hitler, we forget another aspect of the Fuhrer, another side that others couldn't see: that Hitler could be downright charming and outright magnanimous.

His secretary, Traudl Junge, also found Hitler to be a really charming and friendly boss, but admits that she still could've learned about the crimes of the Nazis.

Hitler, to the surprise of the aristocrats and capitalists who met him, could actually use an indoor voice and act gentlemanly and tell these men "I don't mean half the crazy things I say." They started backing Hitler because he managed to act reasonable in front of them can still be friends
.
To these aristocrats, the boisterous demagogue WAS the act, and that behind closed doors, Hitler would be a reasonable ally.

History's monsters don't often START that way. Hitler, once upon a time, could be seen as reasonable. But the combination of megalomania, arrogance, and the toxic drugs his doctor was giving him gradually warped him.

Thus, if there was a territory that willingly accepted Jews, Hitler would be all too willing to ship them to another nation.
 
Hstory's monsters don't often START that way. Hitler, once upon a time, could be seen as reasonable. But the combination of megalomania, arrogance, and the toxic drugs his doctor was giving him gradually warped him.

He was pretty warped by 1925 by any precursory reading of his book...
 
Top