Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Hitler's rule between 1933 and 1939, please help


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#18 Michaelangelica

Michaelangelica

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7797 posts

Posted 15 July 2007 - 12:19 AM

The thing that always has had amazed me about this period is how Hitler managed such massive economic expansion and growth.
This, while the rest of the word was in deep recession
How did he do it?

People tend to 'vote' for people that make them wealthy.

#19 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 16 July 2007 - 06:07 AM

The statement makes no sense at all.

Actually, while you say many true facts as well, his regime was totalitarian and relied on crushing any opposition, starting with the arrest of all Communist MPs after the Reichestag fire. Do you think he left people free to choose? There were political prisoners in the Lager too.

He built such enthusiasm that he was able to make his "socialism" work so well he almost made Germany into a single commune.

In his Nazional-Sozialismus, which Nazi is short for, the latter was certainly one of the ways of scooping up votes, until these became superfluous. I read however that promises were not all kept, for instance not many of the participants in the Volkswagen scheme actually received one after a lot of contributions.....

How did he do it?

At least in part, by stealing.

#20 nasgul

nasgul

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 27 July 2007 - 07:09 AM

As pointed out in The Order of the Death's Head: The Story of Hitler's SS, indoctrinating fear among the general population was not really a reason for popularity, but rather an effective obstruction for those protesting.

For your quote collection:

“The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But, we don't ask for their love; only for their fear.”
- Heinrich Himmler

“I know there are many people in Germany who feel sick at the very sight of this black (SS) uniform. We understand this and we do not expect to be loved. All those who have Germany at heart, will and should respect us. All those who in some way or at some time have a bad conscience in respect to the Führer and the nation should fear us. For these people we have constructed an organization called the SD (SS security service) and in the same way, the Gestapo (secret state police).”
- Heinrich Himmler

Good luck on your assignment.

#21 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 27 July 2007 - 08:02 AM

...indoctrinating fear among the general population was not really a reason for popularity...

Had anybody here said that? :shrug:

#22 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 27 July 2007 - 08:14 AM

As pointed out in The Order of the Death's Head: The Story of Hitler's SS, indoctrinating fear among the general population was not really a reason for popularity, but rather an effective obstruction for those protesting.

For your quote collection:

“The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But, we don't ask for their love; only for their fear.”
- Heinrich Himmler

“I know there are many people in Germany who feel sick at the very sight of this black (SS) uniform. We understand this and we do not expect to be loved. All those who have Germany at heart, will and should respect us. All those who in some way or at some time have a bad conscience in respect to the Führer and the nation should fear us. For these people we have constructed an organization called the SD (SS security service) and in the same way, the Gestapo (secret state police).”
- Heinrich Himmler

Good luck on your assignment.

Exactly! People do not feel safe, secure and relatively stress free unless they have a government they respect. Respect is part admiration and part fear. Society is an enlarged primate troop inwhich the females feel most secure when the alpha males exercise full control. Even in rare cases where a dominant male kills a juvenile, the mother does not leave the troop. In human society, government cannot function well unless it is respected. The fault with Nazism was not that it beat down elements that opposed it but that it was racist and that is an intollerable basis for rule in the modern world.

#23 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 27 July 2007 - 08:33 AM

Exactly! People do not feel safe, secure and relatively stress free unless they have a government they respect. Respect is part admiration and part fear.

Exactly? I believe you misunderstood his words. Anyway there's a subtle difference between "respect" based on fear and true respect. I can tell you I have no respect at all for my current Nazi-type boss, who abuses authority to be a bully.

The fault with Nazism was not that it beat down elements that opposed it but that it was racist and that is an intollerable basis for rule in the modern world.

You express a personal political opinion here, not a fact or example to illustrate a relevant point. The OP asks for help with an assignment in history, your political opinion is totally beyond the purpose and out of place, not to mention being extremist. You're only welcome to take it somewhere else.

#24 Liutas

Liutas

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 27 July 2007 - 08:44 AM

The use of fear by Hitler, can be understood with an analogy. What Hitler had done was create strong feelings of racism and nationalism.


An interesting parallel to that is... Qedit: Sorry, no strong objection to what you wrote but it was risky territory. Please avoid potentially starting a searing hot debate here. :shrug:

The Nazi's first targeted the Jews who were passive and easy to bully.


I disagree there. Anti-semitism was prevalent in most countries in Europe at the time even in countries that had a radition of good will towards Jews. Hitler simply rode the popular wave.

He then led the army against the Poles, who were a peaceful people not equipted for war.


There is a great book called "Shallow Graves in Siberia" by Michael Krupa that has a good take on this. It is autobiographical and the author is one of th few survivors of the Polish military who attacked the German tanks on horseback.

#25 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 27 July 2007 - 08:55 AM

Meant to say... :shrug:

It is true that people feel insecure and are under more stress when there is a lack of discipline. This does not mean they like authority to be abused, it is simply because the lack of it can let crime go uncontrolled. An ineffective police force is the opposite extreme of one that harasses citizens unjustly or is needlessly trigger-happy. Opinions vary about the best compromise but neither extreme is what makes a society feel OK.

#26 nasgul

nasgul

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 27 July 2007 - 09:04 AM

Had anybody here said that? :shrug:

No, and my post didn't assume anyone did. I'm just trying to give some useful information to our friend here.

#27 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 27 July 2007 - 09:10 AM

Sorry, the wording suggested there had been a misunderstanding. :shrug:

#28 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 28 July 2007 - 09:16 AM

Exactly? I believe you misunderstood his words. Anyway there's a subtle difference between "respect" based on fear and true respect. I can tell you I have no respect at all for my current Nazi-type boss, who abuses authority to be a bully.

You express a personal political opinion here, not a fact or example to illustrate a relevant point. The OP asks for help with an assignment in history, your political opinion is totally beyond the purpose and out of place, not to mention being extremist. You're only welcome to take it somewhere else.


All respect includes some fear. You respect a government you admire for efficiency and fairness but also fear it in the certain knowledge that if you do wrong (as determined by the prevailing belief system), it will find and punish you. you respect an individual not only because you admire his or her accomplishments but because you know he or she will not let you take advantage of him or her. He would put you in your place---probably without even having to show anger.

People tend to underestimate the role of fear in their lives. Our hate for dictatorships and brutality in government is based upon our secular ideals and has little if anything to do with social science except to understand it. our fears shape the way the media performs and our politicians prey upon it, but the public doesn't even know it because our democratic ideals sublimate it.

Everything posted so far by everyone here is a personal opinion. I have seen no data presented and all we have all expressed is our interpeting of it. The author's last post was his 15th. I thought we were just carrying on an interesting discussion. . .

#29 nasgul

nasgul

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 28 July 2007 - 03:07 PM

Everything posted so far by everyone here is a personal opinion. I have seen no data presented and all we have all expressed is our interpeting of it.

Is quoting a factual and mainly accepted history book a personal opinion of mine or the author's?

#30 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9148 posts

Posted 28 July 2007 - 03:07 PM

All respect includes some fear.

I respect Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Teresa, and the Dalai Lama. I concede that fear is a primary motivator for most, but your premise which I quoted here is completely bunk.

#31 Freddy

Freddy

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts

Posted 28 July 2007 - 05:09 PM

Everything posted so far by everyone here is a personal opinion. I have seen no data presented and all we have all expressed is our interpeting of it. The author's last post was his 15th. I thought we were just carrying on an interesting discussion. . .

No data! Posts 10, 12, and 19 all contain facts or data.

#32 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 30 July 2007 - 08:28 AM

You make some true points about fear but it's a different matter. Parents might respect their children because they care about them and don't want the children to grow up with psychological damage, they might even fear the children would end up resenting them; This is not the same as being afraid of the children. People might respect a good gov't because they fear the lack of one would undermine prosperity and welfare. Even if they think the party they voted for would be better, they can respect the one that was legitimately chosen, according to the system they believe in; they fear it would be worse not to support this system. Again, this is not fear of that gov't.

you respect an individual not only because you admire his or her accomplishments but because you know he or she will not let you take advantage of him or her. He would put you in your place---probably without even having to show anger.

This is what the case I mentioned, my boss, is an example of. So long as I can't afford to quit this employment, I can only watch my step and it certainly isn't just a matter of him showing anger, he hardly needs to. Do you call that respect? When the day comes that I can hand in my resignation, I'll tell him what I think of him and I don't think I'll put it lightly. Would you say that I respect him now? Anyway I would hope you don't see it that way absolutely in general, it would imply having no whatsoever idea of what it means to be somebody's friend, something for which I could only feel sorry. Not all respect is due to fear of some kind but, mostly, someone causing others to fear them isn't a source of true respect. The Germans of the '20s did not need injustice to feel safe.

Everything posted so far by everyone here is a personal opinion. I have seen no data presented and all we have all expressed is our interpeting of it. The author's last post was his 15th. I thought we were just carrying on an interesting discussion. . .

This is another distinction you fail to make.

A) I did not say only "personal opinion", it was "personal political opinion" and an extremist one to boot, this is not exactly what the History Forum is for.

:phones: Data is not the only alternative to opinion, I said "not a fact or example to illustrate a relevant point".

I have nothing against posting opinions about history in this forum (e. g. "I think Cæsar suffered delirium omnipotentiæ."), but those ones about politics are a different matter. It may even be appropriate to mention political opinions as relevant and even extreme ones, such as discussing how many of the citizens agreed with Hitler's treatment of the Jews and why some did, in an appropriate way. For you to state that this wasn't wrong, your political opinion, is not part of a discussion suitable for History Forum.

#33 charles brough

charles brough

    "overviewist"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 531 posts

Posted 30 July 2007 - 10:13 AM

QFWFQ: From your description, it appears to me that you have no respect for your boss because you do not admire him. You feel the fear part, but not the admiration, so the full combination of "respect" is missing. You clearly recognize him as a inept boss which you would not want to be like were you in his position.

Numbers one and two seem like quibble, but I do hope you did not get the wrong impression from what I wrote, that is, the impression I thought Hitler's treatment of the Jews as being approved or justified. It was only so from the Nazi perspective, not mine.

#34 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 31 July 2007 - 06:32 AM

QFWFQ: From your description, it appears to me that you have no respect for your boss because you do not admire him. You feel the fear part, but not the admiration, so the full combination of "respect" is missing. You clearly recognize him as a inept boss which you would not want to be like were you in his position.

I certainly don't admire him but this does not prove the combination of admiration and fear being necessary for respect. Nor do I see what allows you to deduce that I so "clearly" don't esteem him for his capabilities or competence. On what grounds? To me it appears a non-sequitur, though clarifying the matter could possibly be relevant to the thread topic.

Many societies are traditionally based very much on respect, with neither fear nor admiration being requisite and reasons being necessary for lack of respect. It's just mentality, the way children are brought up. Germany happens to be one of them and I've seen it. How do you support the claim that German society of the time not only needed fear of the government's brutality in order to respect it but even felt more secure that way?

Numbers one and two seem like quibble, but I do hope you did not get the wrong impression from what I wrote, that is, the impression I thought Hitler's treatment of the Jews as being approved or justified. It was only so from the Nazi perspective, not mine.

Actually I realized I was remembering wrong, :turtle: it was the crushing of opposition that you were apparently judging acceptable, but anyway it doesn't matter which. If it was only unclear wording, fine, it could have taken much less to clear the misunderstanding. I just can't agree with calling those points quibble though.