pynchon-l-digest V2 #1840

[Michel Ryckx]

Otto wrote:
[snip]
"So something like "sole Nazi guilt" is a history of the victors (and of the postwar German
governments too for obvious reasons), a "club" that included Russia under Stalin, a political
criminal like Hitler."

History, unfortunately, is never easy to understand; never is it one-sided.  As you know, some say
that AH was elected democratically --hence it was the German people willing to have him in power.
This is absolutely wrong: if one takes a look at the different Reichstag-elections in which the
NSDAP took part:
10-27-1929: 2.8% of the votes;
9-14-1930: 18.2%, third largest party, 107 seats out of 577;
7-31-1932: 37.3% of the votes, largest party; 230 seats out of 608;
11-6-1932: 31.1% of the votes, still the largest party.
AH appointed Chancellor 1-31-1933.  From then on the elections become a farce.
3-5-1933: even then, the NSDAP only has 43.9% of the votes; and 162 of the 422 seats.  The next
month a law was inforced on the organisation of political parties, making it impossible for
democrats and communists to oppose.

Otto goes on:
"Of course Russia, Great Britain and France (I mean the politicial establishment 'cause none of
these three countries really can be called democratic in those days) have their part of the
responsibility that Hitler could become so powerful because they did not stop him, something that
couldn't be expected from the simple Germans."

Me:
There has been an opposition in Germany: from religiously inspired people (the main reason an
ambassador was appointed to the Holy Chair was that German catholics would be more 'pleased' with
their new chancellor), of course from the communists with the wonderful Erich Thälmann at their
head, who spent I believe 12 years in a concentration camp (Buchenwald) and was only shot at the end
of the war.  But the main attitude of the people was to go hide till midnight was over, which most
people, quite understandably, do in a period of great turmoil.

(this must be the first time in my life talking that way to someone from Germany.  And I'm writing
this from a town where one third of the citizens voted for a fascist party last year)

I think, at least for the generations living today, it is not a question of guilt; it is a question
of responsibility.  Guilt, whatever it may be, usually is no good advisor.

Of Great Britain and France: the gouvernments were democratically elected and did not have plans to
be compared with the ones developing and becoming true in Germany.  Though democracy was not as
developed as it is today, its institutions have not been in danger as in Germany at the time.

> The war maybe did not come "because" of the dithering between "appeasement and resistance" -- of
> course it came because Hitler wanted it -- but there was this dithering and there was this war, so
> it seems logical to me that this war wouldn't have taken place the way it has if those other
> imperialist countries had reacted like they had said they would in case of Germany attacking
> Poland, prefereably even earlier in the cases of Austria and Czechoslawakia. Don't underestimate
> "Munich" in its psychological effects on the German masses who were exposed to the nazi propaganda
> machine.

The question 'What, if ' cannot be answered by a historian.  But you may have a point here.  Even
now, the propaganda is so strong that many people believe that Volkswagen produced many cars (the
famous beetles) before WWII.  In fact, only 129 of them were produced.  Or take the wages level,
which was in 1939 not yet on the 1929 level, while the idea lives on that many prospered, if one
compares to the twenties.

> Contrary to this I have to say that this one-sided war-guilt question helps those baldheads from
> today to deny the Holocaust. They say: "You see, the victors are lying about the war-guilt, about
> the necessity of bombing German cities, they are lying about the Holocaust too."   [snip]

The problem with negationist 'historians', apart from having a hidden agenda, like the damnable
former professor Faurisson in France, is that they use everything they're able to use, taking the
context away and presenting the facts in a grossly different way.  On the other hand, a viewpoint
among historians seems to grow that the tracts they write have to be taken seriously, in order to be
able to demonstrate their completely wrong.  Which is very difficult, as the Irving trial proves.
If the deniers were only some stupid skinheads, we could just beat them up.  And then beat them
again, after their recovery.  And again...

> Otto

Kind regards,

Michel.