The movie Downfall - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

pj67coll · #46 04-07-2009, 11:32 AM

Wow. What a thread...

I've watched "Der Untergang" in the vernacular on Youtube. English subtitles a bit irritating but I prefer it to watching a dubbed version. I thought Ganz did an incredible job. Deserved an Oscar for that.

As for the nature of Hitler, Nazism etc... I don't think folks will ever stop writing screeds on that topic. Not ever. Because it was probably the most exceptional upheaval in world history. A blatantly racist attempt at control of the European landmass by one group by the subjugation and extermination of all disparate groups. Nowhere, and nowhen, else has any group progressed so far along such a path. As to wether or not Hitler was clinically insane, before or during his life, and how much he deteriorated as events progressed, wether influenced by drugs or not, that's something that will probably never be definitively known.

One thing that needs highlighting though. While Nazism as it came to be during the Third Reich was largely a creation of Hitler, he didn't do it in a vaccume. Much in Germany, and in fact in Europe as a whole was receptive to such crude racism.

- Peter.

kerry · #47 04-07-2009, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

The move to the left culminated in "The Night of the Long Knives", in which the leftist factions, the Socialists in the National Socialist Party as it were, were rounded up and executed by Hitler. Wiki Ernst Roehm for further information on the subject. A more modern example of leftist National Socialism can easily be seen in the Baath Party, which is essentially the Arab version of Nazism and more left than right in governmental philosophy. But I digress.

But back to the subject of his evilness. Hitler was IMO, ultimately a radical Darwinist, a man heavily influenced by Darwinism and the applications of Darwinistic ideas to political philosophy. His "world view" was essentially racist, it was a system of thinking he held from early on. At it's heart was the idea that there were only a few "pure" races on the planet, the Aryans, the Japanese, and later he added "the Latin race" and the Arabs as a matter of political expediency as fascism took hold in Spain and Italy and fascist movements began to challenge Britain in the Arab world, and of course, the Jews.

The Jews, in his view, were a people who had realized the same thing Hitler had centuries before and were actively plotting to destroy the only other utterly pure racial group, the Germans, which in his view, they almost succeeded in doing when the evil Jews hatched World War I and engineered Germany's defeat and attempted enslavement in the aftermath - it was this view that ultimately came to be held by all Germans and led to his rise to power on a wave of anti-Semitism caused by Germany's defeat and the Great Depression, and finally led to the attempted extermination of the Jews.

His view was that human history was a Darwinistic struggle, a competition for the finite resources of the planet, and that in the end the strongest race that maintained it's racial purity and sought to constantly improve it's genetic stock would rule the world. The other people of the world were polluted genetic stock (undermenschen), the Chinese and South Asians subjected to rape through invasion, the Americans freely co-mingled and the Africans were not even thought of as human, and the Slavs the descendents of a barbaric mob, while the Aryans had done a fine job of protecting their women from barbaric rape and had maintained a social system that frowned on racial or even cross-national breeding and as such were in Hitler's view the most highly evolved race on the planet who simply needed a strong leader to Awaken them in order to take their place as masters of the world.

His evilness came from this view. The undermenschen were to be enslaved, and the competing pure races were to be used to achieve the ultimate dominance of the Aryans and perhaps given a slice of the world or a sphere of influence for their aid, and the Jews were to be exterminated. Extermination was always a central part of Nazi philosopy. Undermenschen races were to be subjected to the management akin to that of livestock, used as beasts and exterminated at will. Lands populated by undermenschen needed by the Aryans for living space were to be de-populated thru extermination. Scientifically, we would call this evolution by natural selection and superior adaptibility, morally, we call it evil.

Oddly, Nazism, with it's Darwinistic base, is the most "scientific" of all of the political philosophies. Other philosophies believe in an eternally sustainable planet. Nazism does not. In the end, they are probably the ones who are scientifically correct, while the rest of us are facing extinction in a polluted world of overpopulation and diminishing resources, the Nazis would have been living in a well-managed abundant low-population planet, but heck, its going to be a lot more fun on the way to extinction than Nazism ever would have been.

I think the 'National' in National Socialism disqualifies it as a leftist ideology. Marxists in particular are internationalists and anti-nationalists. Hitler hated them for that reason. Hitler is not unusual in his racism. He may have been more extreme in it's execution and more efficient in carrying it out but lots of Europeans have been racist. I think one of the reasons that the Baathist party can take root so easily in Iraq is what I noted earlier about the connection between the anti-individualism of Nazism and traditional religions which oppose the same thing.
I agree that the Nazis were very green.

JollyRoger · #48 04-07-2009, 01:05 PM

The words "national" and "socialism" have very different meanings to Hitler. The truth is, Nazi idealogy can be either left or right, it is the very nature of the beast, because as I earlier asserted, Nazism is an organizational structure, not an idealogy, or a system of economics or natural rights.

In order to understand that it can be both left or right, one must understand the central tenets of Nazism: Struggle ("Kampf" ring a bell?) , The Fuehrer's Will and the Fuehrer Principle. Again, the concept of Kampf (Struggle) is tied very tightly to Darwinism - the National Society is seen as an organism itself, struggling to survive in a world that requires immediate adaption - all members of a National Society (the actual origin of the term "National Socialism", it never had any origin in Marx ) are engaged in some sort of Struggle that is part of the National Struggle as defined by the Fuehrer (The Fuehrer Principle). The worker struggles to surpass his quota of gun barrels. The manager struggles to produce more and more rifles, the Party Member struggles to defeat anything that counters party policy, the farmer struggles to produce more food on less land to feed the troops, all are engaged in some task to further the goals of society in order the meet the National Struggle as defined by the Fuehrer. People are not going to work to pick up a paycheck, they go to work in order to take part in a war. Life is in itself, war.

These people are organized into "Fronts", there is a Labor Front, a Farm Front, etc, all reporting to the Party and ultimately to The Fuehrer. As we all learned in WWII, it is a powerfully effective method for the waging of war, and it has deep roots in Nordic society, indeed it organizes millions of people in a society in much the same way as Viking bands were organized. With this appartus, the Fuehrer can be in complete command of a National Society and direct it to fulfill his Will (Triumph of The Will, anyone?). Under men of genius, the system could be used to do incredible things, like Speer's massive war production in spite of massive allied bombings, or the building of the Autobahn by Tott, but in the end, it fails because, well, nobody's perfect, like Hitler at Stalingrad, while The Will can Triumph, it can also make some pretty collossal mistakes, like declaring war on America, for instance.

Economic systems are not defined in Nazism, and for a reason, the current economic system is whatever the Fuehrer says it is, if he deems all should have health insurance for the purpose of raising healthy potential soldiers and all people should live in communes in order to conserve resources, then that is the way society will be, If the Fuehrer demands that all taxes be removed and that free enterprise reigns in order to wreck havoc on a competing economy, that would be done as well, left or right simply does not matter. It matters not if they are "left" or "right" ideas, they are simply things that will be done because The Fuehrer has Willed it, and the Fuehrer is engaged in the greatest Struggle of all, the struggle for survival and triumph of the Aryan Race (the whole point of the book "Mein Kampf"), and all must obey him and see him as chosen by God to be the country itself. It is not hard to see why Bertrand Russel called Nazism "the bastard child of Fascism and Communism", for that is what it is, a smosgasboard of totalitarianism. If you look at the early history of Nazism, it had two competing models, Rohm's Stormtrooper people's army concept (the leftists) that Hitler gave homage too until he became Chancellor and saw them as a threat to his takeover of the Wehrmacht, and the other model, the er, Hitler's Will model we could call it, which ended up falling to the right in order to gain the support of the Prussian elites. It really could have gone either way.

Botnst · #49 04-07-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

... It is really that simple, and accusations based on that premise are more than justified and valid, as much as calling someone a Republican or a Democrat because of some evident central belief is.

Bingo!

JollyRoger · #50 04-07-2009, 01:59 PM

More on the Darwinistic nature of Nazism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuhrerprincip

and on the left/right divide in Nazism prior to Hitler's achievement of total power:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-roehm.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stennes_Revolt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

kerry · #51 04-07-2009, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

The words "national" and "socialism" have very different meanings to Hitler. The truth is, Nazi idealogy can be either left or right, it is the very nature of the beast, because as I earlier asserted, Nazism is an organizational structure, not an idealogy, or a system of economics or natural rights.

In order to understand that it can be both left or right, one must understand the central tenets of Nazism: Struggle ("Kampf" ring a bell?) , The Fuehrer's Will and the Fuehrer Principle. Again, the concept of Kampf (Struggle) is tied very tightly to Darwinism - the National Society is seen as an organism itself, struggling to survive in a world that requires immediate adaption - all members of a National Society (the actual origin of the term "National Socialism", it never had any origin in Marx ) are engaged in some sort of Struggle that is part of the National Struggle as defined by the Fuehrer (The Fuehrer Principle). The worker struggles to surpass his quota of gun barrels. The manager struggles to produce more and more rifles, the Party Member struggles to defeat anything that counters party policy, the farmer struggles to produce more food on less land to feed the troops, all are engaged in some task to further the goals of society in order the meet the National Struggle as defined by the Fuehrer. People are not going to work to pick up a paycheck, they go to work in order to take part in a war. Life is in itself, war.

These people are organized into "Fronts", there is a Labor Front, a Farm Front, etc, all reporting to the Party and ultimately to The Fuehrer. As we all learned in WWII, it is a powerfully effective method for the waging of war, and it has deep roots in Nordic society, indeed it organizes millions of people in a society in much the same way as Viking bands were organized. With this appartus, the Fuehrer can be in complete command of a National Society and direct it to fulfill his Will (Triumph of The Will, anyone?). Under men of genius, the system could be used to do incredible things, like Speer's massive war production in spite of massive allied bombings, or the building of the Autobahn by Tott, but in the end, it fails because, well, nobody's perfect, like Hitler at Stalingrad, while The Will can Triumph, it can also make some pretty collossal mistakes, like declaring war on America, for instance.

Economic systems are not defined in Nazism, and for a reason, the current economic system is whatever the Fuehrer says it is, if he deems all should have health insurance for the purpose of raising healthy potential soldiers and all people should live in communes in order to conserve resources, then that is the way society will be, If the Fuehrer demands that all taxes be removed and that free enterprise reigns in order to wreck havoc on a competing economy, that would be done as well, left or right simply does not matter. It matters not if they are "left" or "right" ideas, they are simply things that will be done because The Fuehrer has Willed it, and the Fuehrer is engaged in the greatest Struggle of all, the struggle for survival and triumph of the Aryan Race (the whole point of the book "Mein Kampf"), and all must obey him and see him as chosen by God to be the country itself. It is not hard to see why Bertrand Russel called Nazism "the bastard child of Fascism and Communism", for that is what it is, a smosgasboard of totalitarianism. If you look at the early history of Nazism, it had two competing models, Rohm's Stormtrooper people's army concept (the leftists) that Hitler gave homage too until he became Chancellor and saw them as a threat to his takeover of the Wehrmacht, and the other model, the er, Hitler's Will model we could call it, which ended up falling to the right in order to gain the support of the Prussian elites. It really could have gone either way.

Jihad.

I agree with your description of of Nazism (apart from the left/right issue depending on how you cut it. Nazism can't be individualist and it can't ignore state responsibility for the working class). I also agree that it is not an economic system. I think it's a moral/philosophical/religious system. It's designed to give an alienated individual a grand moral purpose to which they can sacrifice their lives. Each person serves the purpose of the State machine which itself serves as the moral center of society. Insofar as it provides that moral focus for the individual, I think it is a mistake to call it evil. It is a version of the good. The system functionally replaces classical religious motivation. Instead of giving one's life to the lord, one gives it to the Fuhrer and in return the believer exchanges a trite, meaningless life, for a role in the mythological struggle between good and evil.

JollyRoger · #52 04-07-2009, 04:23 PM

It is a machine of death. I see no way to say it is of the good. Those people exchanging their meaningless lives are being used like gear oil in a grinding axle.

kerry · #53 04-07-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

It is a machine of death. Those people exchanging their meaningless lives are being used like gear oil in a grinding axle.

I agree completely with those two claims. But if it isn't a version of good, then why were/are so many people drawn towards it? I think it's partly because humans want a life (or a death in this case) that's not just accidental. Certain kinds of moral systems provide that meaning. Socrates convinced himself that his execution by the State was a grand moral moment. Being ground up by the Nazi machine (or blowing up yourself as a suicide bomber), or killing your own children in the bunker can be seen the same way.

JollyRoger · #54 04-07-2009, 04:56 PM

I fail to see your logic, you seem to be saying that because people are drawn to it, it must be a good. I think that they are drawn to it because the innate tribal instinct that is expressed in the modern world as something we call "patriotism" is an easily manipulated emotion when subjected to the sophisticated arts of propaganda - something we have sadly seen in this country, and where Hitler's true genuis lay. What you are calling the good, I am calling "being fooled". I suppose you could make a case that the people who answered the call of racism did so out of good intentions, but the force that was motivating had nothing but evil to offer. I think people know this on some level, and justify their immoral actions on another.

pj67coll · #55 04-07-2009, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

What you are calling the good, I am calling "being fooled". I suppose you could make a case that the people who answered the call of racism did so out of good intentions, but the force that was motivating had nothing but evil to offer.

Ultimately this can only be determined if one can agree on a definition of "good" vs "evil".

Clearly if you were a true believer of Nazism your definition of "good" would be completely different to that of a typical inhabbitant of a western european democracy. Of course that applies just as well to a true believer of communism or (insert philosophy of choice here)

- Peter.

Botnst · #56 04-07-2009, 05:20 PM

You guys seem to be confusing moral terminology.

If there is an absolute good (as JR implies) then Nazism can be perpetually defined as evil if one argues that always putting the state's interest ahead of the individual's interest is evil.

If there is no absolute good (as Kerry implies) then good could be defined as the most efficacious manner of achieving the state's goals. Thus, suppressing individuality is a good thing, suppressing nonconformity is good, etc.

JollyRoger · #57 04-07-2009, 05:29 PM

I am a victim of my own morality.

Fitz · #58 04-07-2009, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

It is a machine of death. I see no way to say it is of the good.

Shades of Saddam and his "people shredder", you have the makings of a good Neo-Con.

Botnst · #59 04-07-2009, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fitz

Shades of Saddam and his "people shredder", you have the makings of a good Neo-Con.

Uh-oh.

t walgamuth · #60 04-07-2009, 06:44 PM

Sorry, I ran out of steam a bit over half way through this thread, so didn't read it all.

If the Germans weren't so compulsive about writing things down perhaps a lot of what went on would not be known for sure. They kept detailed lists of how many people were executed etc. They also did extensive studies of how many calories people needed to be productive in a war factory. Of course lots died along the way....all meticulously recorded for the good of the cause (so to speak).

I think Stalin may have been a lot worse than Hitler but the Russians are compulsively secretive so much less is known about his activities.

One of the ways that Hitler kept people doing things for him was that nobody except him knew all that was going on (this is probably a simplification). Each section of activities knew only what they were told to do.

Was he mad? I don't know but he clearly was not normal in his ideas of what was appropriate activities to pursue.