pynchon-l-digest V2 #1840

[Otto]

Bonjour Michel,

> 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.
>

It is very important to note that at the beginning most Germans did not want
Hitler, but this had and I believe that even those many simple, unpolitical
Germans were beginning to think that this government is good for them. The
nazi influence on the young people suffering from the unemployment of their
parents, living in poverty, became very strong.

> 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.
>

The impression I got from everything they've told again and again is that
primarily they really were struggling to get enough food, housing, clothing
and shoes for the kids, wood and coal for the winter, and that the nazis
must have been quite effective in providing these basic things very quickly.

> (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)
>

Yeah, Belgium is strange too indeed. Are the neofascists still mainly
Vlaams?

> 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.
>

Absolutely agreed. Guilt is something personal while responsibility can be
there even if you did nothing bad yourself, just by letting things happen
and looking the other way. This kind of responsibility let the American
youth stand up against the Vietnam war.

> 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.
>

I still have problems calling them democratic instead of imperialistic.

> > 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.
>

One of those nazi myths. As a popular verse said: Der Führer war ein armes
Schwein, er hatte keinen Führerschein -- "Führerschein" is the German word
for driver's license.

'What, if ' cannot be answered by historians but is a legimate device of
literature. Did you read (or see, with Rutger Houer) "Fatherland"?

> > 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.