Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
As a serial lurker, I see many posts (particularly in respect to Ethics) which ultimately bring about the Nazi case. The general format is "What would you have done during the times of the Nazis" or "Isn't that what the Nazis did?" etc.
The case of Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, and the like were very specific sociocultural events which immense background. To have this brought into an ethical debate without actually going into the political, social, and psychological era of the times, e.g dominant ideologies in the US, Germany, the Ghetto and the like, is a rather cheap treatment of the event itself, in which it becomes diluted as a mundane, perhaps even mythical reference to anything evil; in other words, it abstracts from the actual events and places them in a timeframe far earlier than its actual occurrence - e.g. Mythical Time; thus leading it to be a self fulfilling folktale rather than a historical event; and something which is relevant and understandable to the whole of humanity rather than a (very broad) group of people.
The Nazi case is thus the new Myth of the modern era; it is a myth not in the sense of it not having taken place (for it did), but is mythical because it is used almost impulsively as some kind of fairy-tale scenario of good vs. evil. Other players who were not as good as the myth portrays them to be (The "Allied" powers) are the prince charming of this magical tale. The actual atrocities have been entirely forgotten and merely abstracted as a "Blow of evil", of "being possessed" etc. and thus has lost its actual history.
Actually the Holocaust the events, and the ideologies that surrounded it, while on the surface were heterogeneous, they were in essence all part of the same ideology and theme -- which existed almost universally, which is partially an explanation of why it was able to go on as long as it did.. and perhaps if not for the military aspect of WWII, would have continued much longer than it did.
It seems the term "Nazi" signifies many things: the real historical group that seized power in Germany in the 1930's and caused World War II and the holocaust, pure evil, the evil of extreme xenophobic nationalism, the evil of extreme antisemitism, the evil of extreme state control, the evil of extreme anti-communism/socialism, to name a few.
It seems the term "Nazi" signifies many things: the real historical group that seized power in Germany in the 1930's and caused World War II and the holocaust, pure evil, the evil of extreme xenophobic nationalism, the evil of extreme antisemitism, the evil of extreme state control, the evil of extreme anti-communism/socialism, to name a few.
I think much of the problem here is not as much historical as it is generational. Words/Epithets/Sterotypes etc... change meaning intergenerationally. Those not directly affected by the events of WW2 cannot have the same respect for a term like Nazi. Nazi has become a byword for petty fascism, and I mean small scale petty. If it were not a parody of itself, things like "the soup Nazi" would have never been funny. People closer to the affected groups and generations, however, often find the parody a little disrespectful.
My mother still cringes when I use the word "sucks". In her generation and local it was a direct reference to oral sex. To me its just a term for things that, for the lack of a more appropriate term, SUCK. It is the way of socio-linguistic intergenerational semantics.
Ken:
What Baal was originally trying to say is that it offends him that the term is used in the "Soup Nazi" manner. He doesn't like every little biggotry being likened to the mass organized nationalistic genocide of nazism. Or is this why you are upset with him, because he thinks it should be reserved for truely heinous things?
The Nazis did things that no one believed were humanly possible. A systematic slaughter of a people, and only for the reason that those people were the people they were. And they did it with glee, and with a song in their hearts. I agree that no one could possibly talk the way Baal talks without being either woefully ignorant, or horribly malevolent. Maybe both. He might try going to the Holocaust Museum in Washington D. C. and, perhaps, learn something. But it may be a lost cause. I also wonder about those who thanked Baal for his post. Very young and foolish-I hope.
But I've long believed that the mythologicalization of Nazis is a natural result of the loss of images of evil like Satan and the Antichrist. Hitler works very well in this role. He's become the new Satan. Mention his name and a cold chill goes down the spine.
It may be natural, but it may also lead us to forget: the Germans were and are our kin.
I think they're mythologized because it's impossible to fathom that this kind of cruelty could be real.
What is unfair about comparing a bigot to Hitler or Nazi principle in general? They follow the same trend, only one is not so extreme as the other.
Nazism has become a cautionary occurrence: we look back and say "never again", so why not look around today, in our own times, and notice the tendencies toward what we do not ever want to see in full fruition? If anything, it will be wise for us to make those comparisons so that we do not forget what leads to Nazism.
I agree, except that I do not believe that Hitler and the Nazis really were more extremely evil than many others. Most evil people are not dictators of world-class powers, so the effects of their evil is far less. But it does not mean that they are morally better people, just that their impact is less.
If, for example, we look at someone like Idi Amin, I think it would be difficult to argue that he was a better man than Hitler, though he was probably responsible for the deaths of only hundreds of thousands of people instead of millions. But that was because he was in charge of a relatively backward country, and was more inept than Hitler, not because he was a nicer guy.
If anyone here thinks Idi Amin was a better man, please put forth the arguments. Otherwise, spare me the drivel about Hitler being superhumanly evil. He was no more evil than many others, most of whom are not famous because they never had enough power to do much. Most are not dictators of even third world countries, and are just "ordinary" citizens.
The real distinction for Hitler is that he was the only one as evil as him who was a dictator of a first world country in modern history. Other than that, he is nothing special at all.
...
I feel I have to speak up for my German neighbours. ...
Let us stop right there. "German" is not equivalent to "Nazi", not even during WWII. The Nazi Party was a political party, and not everyone was a member, and even of those who were members, some joined for reasons other than because they agreed with everything that Hitler eventually did. In fact, before the end of WWII, several German plots to assassinate Hitler were attempted, which shows how very much some Germans hated him, as one does not generally try to assassinate someone for a trifle. And of those who did not have a plot to assassinate him, that does not show they liked him more; most people were simply not in a position to be able to make a serious attempt at such a thing, not to mention the fact that some people have a problem with murder, even of a bad person.
