[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
I havent read this yet but its true that above all else WWII was a war between Socialism and Fascism.
[/quote]
I do believe that should have read “above all else WWII was a war against Socialism (Germany) and Facism (Italy)” . . .[/quote]
I do blelieve that should have read "above all else ww2 was a war against anti-socialist ( germany ) and fascist( italy ).
fascisme ( both italian and german ) are the ideology of contra-revolution.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
I havent read this yet but its true that above all else WWII was a war between Socialism and Fascism.
[/quote]
I do believe that should have read “above all else WWII was a war against Socialism (Germany) and Facism (Italy)” . . .[/quote]
I do blelieve that should have read "above all else ww2 was a war against anti-socialist ( germany ) and fascist( italy ).
fascisme ( both italian and german ) are the ideology of contra-revolution.
[/quote]
Sorry, but National Socialism is merely socialism dedicated to the advancement of the self-identified nation as its ultimate goal. The underlying values, the worker’s revolution, the collectivist mindset all are foundational elements of the national socialist movement. I’ll throw your and Ryan’s argument back at you that the Nazi’s are not the perfect example of national socialism due to the person of Hitler, but the reality was that the Nazi’s rise to power was based in perfect socialist ideals and an anti-capitalist mentality.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
I havent read this yet but its true that above all else WWII was a war between Socialism and Fascism.
[/quote]
I do believe that should have read “above all else WWII was a war against Socialism (Germany) and Facism (Italy)” . . .[/quote]
I do blelieve that should have read "above all else ww2 was a war against anti-socialist ( germany ) and fascist( italy ).
fascisme ( both italian and german ) are the ideology of contra-revolution.
[/quote]
Sorry, but National Socialism is merely socialism dedicated to the advancement of the self-identified nation as its ultimate goal. The underlying values, the worker’s revolution, the collectivist mindset all are foundational elements of the national socialist movement. I’ll throw your and Ryan’s argument back at you that the Nazi’s are not the perfect example of national socialism due to the person of Hitler, but the reality was that the Nazi’s rise to power was based in perfect socialist ideals and an anti-capitalist mentality.[/quote]
nazisme consisted of different sub-groups, and some of them where socialist-ish. But this socialist-ish sub group had different outlook on many things than the marxist socialist ( communist and socialdemocrats ). marxist-socialists believed that the socialhistory where driven by class antagonisme since the dawn of the state. the nazi-socialist believed that the socialhistory where driven by race antagonisme. This made them quit different. for example did marxist have a internationalist stance, because the struggle of the proletariat was not a national struggle, it was international. This is why marxist partys and unions did not support there own countrys in the WW1. The nazi-socialist movement may have come about because of this. Its why mussolini for example broke with the marxist movement and created his own. because he thougt the marxist where traitors. So the left-wing of the naziparty wanted a statist economy and a welfare state for the aryan worker. And the national-syndicalists wanted workers-cooperatives in fascist italy. Still did both the german and italian fascist partys consist of more right-wing groups. you know freikorps ( privat militias who shoot strikers in the 1920`s ), conservatives who was afraid of the growing labour movement. And offcourse way off loco individuals like goebbels:P. This is why I think the fascist where able to be popular among both workers and burgeois. The core of fascisme is this: class antagonisme is damaging for the nation. If the workers could accept the classsystem and if the burgeois could grant the workers some benefit, the nation would be more stable. new deal was fascist in a economi sence. Another difference between marxists and fascists are the outlook on the state. A marxist look at the state as a necessary evil for protecting the revolution, while the fascists look at the state as an end in itself, and that the individual are a tool for the state, not the other way around as a liberalist or an marxist would say. So fascisme is fascisme, its neither a form of socialisme or a form of liberalisme/capitalisme.
Florelius - you need to be more specific. Nazism is the right wing of the Socialist movement, not the right wing of the political spectrum: Let’s let the words of the Nazi platform illustrate this:
WE DEMAND THAT THE GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKE THE OBLIGATION ABOVE ALL OF PROVIDING CITIZENS WITH ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT AND EARNING A LIVING.
THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO CLASH WITH THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMUNITY, BUT MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN ITS CONFINES AND BE FOR THE GOOD OF ALL …
WE DEMAND THE NATIONALIZATION OF ALL BUSINESSES WHICH HAVE BEEN AMALGAMATED (INTO TRUSTS).
WE DEMAND THAT THE STATE SHALL SHARE IN THE PROFITS OF LARGE INDUSTRIES.
WE DEMAND THAT PROVISION FOR THE AGED SHALL BE MADE ON A VERY GREATLY INCREASED SCALE.
WE DEMAND A LAND-REFORM SUITABLE TO OUR NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, THE PASSING OF A LAW FOR THE CONFISCATION OF LAND FOR COMMUNAL PURPOSES; THE ABOLITION OF INTEREST ON MORTGAGES, AND PROHIBITION OF ALL SPECULATION IN LAND.
WE DEMAND AN AGRARIAN REFORM SUITABLE TO OUR NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS; THE ENACTMENT OF A LAW TO EXPROPRIATE WITHOUT COMPENSATION THE OWNERS OF ANY LAND THAT MAY BE NEEDED FOR NATIONAL PURPOSES; THE ABOLITION OF GROUND RENTS; AND THE PROHIBITION OF ALL SPECULATION IN LAND.
…THE STATE SHALL ORGANIZE THOROUGHLY THE WHOLE CULTURAL SYSTEM OF THE NATION . . . THE CONCEPTION OF THE STATE IDEA (THE SCIENCE OF CITIZENSHIP) SHALL BE TAUGHT IN THE SCHOOLS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. WE DEMAND THAT SPECIALLY TALENTED CHILDREN OF POOR PARENTS, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR STATION OR OCCUPATION, SHALL BE EDUCATED AT THE COST OF THE STATE.
IT IS THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO HELP RAISE THE STANDARD OF THE NATION’S HEALTH BY PROVIDING MATERNITY WELFARE CENTRES, BY PROHIBITING JUVENILE LABOUR, BY INCREASING PHYSICAL FITNESS THROUGH THE INTRODUCTION OF COMPULSORY GAMES AND GYMNASTICS. . . .
(WE) COMBAT THE MATERIALISTIC SPIRIT WITHIN AND OUTSIDE US, AND ARE CONVINCED THAT A PERMANENT RECOVERY OF OUR PEOPLE CAN ONLY PROCEED WITHIN ON THE FOUNDATION OF “THE COMMON GOOD BEFORE THE INDIVIDUAL GOOD.”
hmmm . . .sounds like socialism to me . . .
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
I havent read this yet but its true that above all else WWII was a war between Socialism and Fascism.
[/quote]
I do believe that should have read “above all else WWII was a war against Socialism (Germany) and Facism (Italy)” . . .[/quote]
I do blelieve that should have read "above all else ww2 was a war against anti-socialist ( germany ) and fascist( italy ).
fascisme ( both italian and german ) are the ideology of contra-revolution.
[/quote]
Sorry, but National Socialism is merely socialism dedicated to the advancement of the self-identified nation as its ultimate goal. The underlying values, the worker’s revolution, the collectivist mindset all are foundational elements of the national socialist movement. I’ll throw your and Ryan’s argument back at you that the Nazi’s are not the perfect example of national socialism due to the person of Hitler, but the reality was that the Nazi’s rise to power was based in perfect socialist ideals and an anti-capitalist mentality.[/quote]
nazisme consisted of different sub-groups, and some of them where socialist-ish. But this socialist-ish sub group had different outlook on many things than the marxist socialist ( communist and socialdemocrats ). marxist-socialists believed that the socialhistory where driven by class antagonisme since the dawn of the state. the nazi-socialist believed that the socialhistory where driven by race antagonisme. This made them quit different. for example did marxist have a internationalist stance, because the struggle of the proletariat was not a national struggle, it was international. This is why marxist partys and unions did not support there own countrys in the WW1. The nazi-socialist movement may have come about because of this. Its why mussolini for example broke with the marxist movement and created his own. because he thougt the marxist where traitors. So the left-wing of the naziparty wanted a statist economy and a welfare state for the aryan worker. And the national-syndicalists wanted workers-cooperatives in fascist italy. Still did both the german and italian fascist partys consist of more right-wing groups. you know freikorps ( privat militias who shoot strikers in the 1920`s ), conservatives who was afraid of the growing labour movement. And offcourse way off loco individuals like goebbels:P. This is why I think the fascist where able to be popular among both workers and burgeois. The core of fascisme is this: class antagonisme is damaging for the nation. If the workers could accept the classsystem and if the burgeois could grant the workers some benefit, the nation would be more stable. new deal was fascist in a economi sence. Another difference between marxists and fascists are the outlook on the state. A marxist look at the state as a necessary evil for protecting the revolution, while the fascists look at the state as an end in itself, and that the individual are a tool for the state, not the other way around as a liberalist or an marxist would say. So fascisme is fascisme, its neither a form of socialisme or a form of liberalisme/capitalisme.[/quote]
Wrong. Fascism, as Mussolini stated it, is a mixture of right and left wing politics. Since there is no such thing as an international right-wing (right wingers in Russia now are Stalinists, in Japan there favor the Emperor and in the US they are classical Liberals, e.g.) Fascism has been hard to define – Italy was more centrist than anything else under Mussolini with strong corporatism. No matter what, Fascists everywhere blamed the Liberals for creating the class system (false – there were classes long before 1700) and the Marxists for exploiting it (true).
Nazism, on the other hand realized that the Marxist class model was insufficient and tried to put things on a more (pseudo)scientific basis using race:
“National Socialism and Marxism are basically the same”
– A… Hitler, party speech given in Feb. 1941
In the time between the world wars, syndicalism (the State controls the unions and dictates what companies make) was the strongest socialist movement around and everybody back then agreed it was indeed a form of socialism. It was the association with the Fascists that made it fall out of favor.
In truth, Nazism was very much a pathology of the Left. Marx himself never used the term “Capitalism” (coined by Thackery ca. 1860) in his writings, but the term “Judentum” = Jewdom to describe commerce. Capitalism itself as term was obscure until Werner Sombart – a radical left wing economist – wrote his work Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben (1911) in which he squarely called all of Liberalism an outgrowth of Judaism. This was one of the most influential mainstream books in Germany and was later enthusiastically accepted by the nascent Nazi party, which Sombart joined (there weren’t many actual members of the party, btw).
The large-scale nationalization of Jewish property was simply seen as yet another redistribution of wealth along socialist lines. The extermination of the Jews and other undesirables was directly modeled on the Soviet gulag system (and indeed, a detailed analysis of the Soviet system was used as the blueprint). The reason we have such feelings for the Nazis was that we caught them in mid-atrocity. The Soviets got off pretty much scott-free, but were far, far worse.
Von Hayek – who should know – very succinctly put it that Socialism never really amounted to much more than the belief that social justice is the aim of government and is best accomplished through autocratic means. At no point where it has become the dominant political movement has there ever been anything but misery. You live in Norway (a monarchy, I might add), and there the socialists behave themselves as part of a pluralistic system. That can work, but every program they propose will always have to be examined like any other party. Their main claim that they have figured out history is bunk and they can have no special treatment (which they always claim is their right).
Speaking strictly professionally as an academic, Marx is a completely second rate German philosopher. There are better (Hegel and Kant come to mind). If it were not for the politicization of his writings he would be justifiably obscure. No university teaches Marxist biology (Lysenko), Marxist literature (yawn I can’t even name any, though people like Barbara Kingsolver make a hash of it in English), Marxist economics or any other supposed intellectual legacy of his. He made a good criticism of the beginning German industrial revolution and how the medieval German political system was failing, but that’s about it.
– jj
In line with the mention of Sombart, here is a length quote from the Wikipedia page on him which is a pretty good summation of the thinking by the Nazis at the time (ca. 1936):
It is important for historical accuracy to understand not what later agendas ascribe to the Nazis but what they were trying to do. It is only in this way that we can dispense with labels and come to grips with what was toxic in their thinking.
– jj
edit: Forget to put the link to the original article:
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
I havent read this yet but its true that above all else WWII was a war between Socialism and Fascism.
[/quote]
I do believe that should have read “above all else WWII was a war against Socialism (Germany) and Facism (Italy)” . . .[/quote]
I do blelieve that should have read "above all else ww2 was a war against anti-socialist ( germany ) and fascist( italy ).
fascisme ( both italian and german ) are the ideology of contra-revolution.
[/quote]
Sorry, but National Socialism is merely socialism dedicated to the advancement of the self-identified nation as its ultimate goal. The underlying values, the worker’s revolution, the collectivist mindset all are foundational elements of the national socialist movement. I’ll throw your and Ryan’s argument back at you that the Nazi’s are not the perfect example of national socialism due to the person of Hitler, but the reality was that the Nazi’s rise to power was based in perfect socialist ideals and an anti-capitalist mentality.[/quote]
nazisme consisted of different sub-groups, and some of them where socialist-ish. But this socialist-ish sub group had different outlook on many things than the marxist socialist ( communist and socialdemocrats ). marxist-socialists believed that the socialhistory where driven by class antagonisme since the dawn of the state. the nazi-socialist believed that the socialhistory where driven by race antagonisme. This made them quit different. for example did marxist have a internationalist stance, because the struggle of the proletariat was not a national struggle, it was international. This is why marxist partys and unions did not support there own countrys in the WW1. The nazi-socialist movement may have come about because of this. Its why mussolini for example broke with the marxist movement and created his own. because he thougt the marxist where traitors. So the left-wing of the naziparty wanted a statist economy and a welfare state for the aryan worker. And the national-syndicalists wanted workers-cooperatives in fascist italy. Still did both the german and italian fascist partys consist of more right-wing groups. you know freikorps ( privat militias who shoot strikers in the 1920`s ), conservatives who was afraid of the growing labour movement. And offcourse way off loco individuals like goebbels:P. This is why I think the fascist where able to be popular among both workers and burgeois. The core of fascisme is this: class antagonisme is damaging for the nation. If the workers could accept the classsystem and if the burgeois could grant the workers some benefit, the nation would be more stable. new deal was fascist in a economi sence. Another difference between marxists and fascists are the outlook on the state. A marxist look at the state as a necessary evil for protecting the revolution, while the fascists look at the state as an end in itself, and that the individual are a tool for the state, not the other way around as a liberalist or an marxist would say. So fascisme is fascisme, its neither a form of socialisme or a form of liberalisme/capitalisme.[/quote]
Wrong. Fascism, as Mussolini stated it, is a mixture of right and left wing politics. Since there is no such thing as an international right-wing (right wingers in Russia now are Stalinists, in Japan there favor the Emperor and in the US they are classical Liberals, e.g.) Fascism has been hard to define – Italy was more centrist than anything else under Mussolini with strong corporatism. No matter what, Fascists everywhere blamed the Liberals for creating the class system (false – there were classes long before 1700) and the Marxists for exploiting it (true).
Nazism, on the other hand realized that the Marxist class model was insufficient and tried to put things on a more (pseudo)scientific basis using race:
“National Socialism and Marxism are basically the same”
– A… Hitler, party speech given in Feb. 1941
In the time between the world wars, syndicalism (the State controls the unions and dictates what companies make) was the strongest socialist movement around and everybody back then agreed it was indeed a form of socialism. It was the association with the Fascists that made it fall out of favor.
In truth, Nazism was very much a pathology of the Left. Marx himself never used the term “Capitalism” (coined by Thackery ca. 1860) in his writings, but the term “Judentum” = Jewdom to describe commerce. Capitalism itself as term was obscure until Werner Sombart – a radical left wing economist – wrote his work Die Juden und das Wirtschaftsleben (1911) in which he squarely called all of Liberalism an outgrowth of Judaism. This was one of the most influential mainstream books in Germany and was later enthusiastically accepted by the nascent Nazi party, which Sombart joined (there weren’t many actual members of the party, btw).
The large-scale nationalization of Jewish property was simply seen as yet another redistribution of wealth along socialist lines. The extermination of the Jews and other undesirables was directly modeled on the Soviet gulag system (and indeed, a detailed analysis of the Soviet system was used as the blueprint). The reason we have such feelings for the Nazis was that we caught them in mid-atrocity. The Soviets got off pretty much scott-free, but were far, far worse.
Von Hayek – who should know – very succinctly put it that Socialism never really amounted to much more than the belief that social justice is the aim of government and is best accomplished through autocratic means. At no point where it has become the dominant political movement has there ever been anything but misery. You live in Norway (a monarchy, I might add), and there the socialists behave themselves as part of a pluralistic system. That can work, but every program they propose will always have to be examined like any other party. Their main claim that they have figured out history is bunk and they can have no special treatment (which they always claim is their right).
Speaking strictly professionally as an academic, Marx is a completely second rate German philosopher. There are better (Hegel and Kant come to mind). If it were not for the politicization of his writings he would be justifiably obscure. No university teaches Marxist biology (Lysenko), Marxist literature (yawn I can’t even name any, though people like Barbara Kingsolver make a hash of it in English), Marxist economics or any other supposed intellectual legacy of his. He made a good criticism of the beginning German industrial revolution and how the medieval German political system was failing, but that’s about it.
– jj[/quote]
hm are you implying that the jewish marx was an antisemite?
the first people who where sent to concentration camps where not jews btw, they where marxists. my fathers uncle sat in sachsenhausen because he was an communist.
so there is a difference between standard marxist communists and national-socialist.
I agree that fascisme/nazisme is in a economical sence in the middle of the right/left spectrum.
[quote]florelius wrote:
hm are you implying that the jewish marx was an antisemite?
the first people who where sent to concentration camps where not jews btw, they where marxists. my fathers uncle sat in sachsenhausen because he was an communist.
so there is a difference between standard marxist communists and national-socialist.
I agree that fascisme/nazisme is in a economical sence in the middle of the right/left spectrum.
[/quote]
Was Marx an anti-semite? Since anti-semitism (in the modern sense) didn’t exist, but anti-Jewishness did, nope. The difference – articulated by Hannah Arendt (who was Jewish) is that anti-Jewishness has been around since almost the beginning of European history. It is the belief that Jewish culture is bad. The stereotype of the hook-nosed, wooley-haired & pathologically greedy Jewish merchant was well entrenched in Germany in Marx’s day – the so-called “eternal Jew”. In anti-Jewish thinking, a conversion to Christianity (the only option) would pretty much completely redeem you. Marx’s father converted, as did his mother later and Marx himself was baptized so that meant that Marx was not considered Jewish at the time (like, say, Felix Mendelssohn). Oddly, we now have such entrenched notions of race that it is us, not Marx, who cannot fathom he didn’t think of himself as Jewish. Anti-semitism, on the other hand, is an outgrowth of pseudo-scientific thinking. Anti-semitic thought has that all bad traits are genetic, so no reform of any type was possible.
The point remains that Marx’s use was very common at the time and can easily be traced from the Middle Ages when Jews, unable to legally own property, became bankers, merchants and other professionals. The Christian prohibition on usury (demanding interest on loans) meant that banking was an almost completely Jewish affair. It would have been very natural for him to assume that Jews were the cause of banking rather than being forced into it as one of their only options.
It is true that Marxists were heavily persecuted by the Nazis for a while, although the largest concentration camps in Europe before the Nazis were outside of Paris and housed Russian expatriates fleeing the Bolsheviks. After the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that made the Germans and Soviets effective allies, the Soviets cheerily rounded up many German communists who had fled to Russia for protection and deported them to Germany, where they were pretty much shot on the spot.
I did not state that Marxism and Nazism were the same – Hitler did. However, the peculiar re-writing of history in the US now holds that the Nazis would happily be members of the Republican Party, which is almost too absurd to imagine.
I should also tell you that I have had a strong interest in understanding exactly what went wrong in Germany. While I lived there, I tracked down and talked to many people who had served in the Wehrmacht, the Waffen SS and worked in various other official/semi-official positions. They told all the same tale which really is much more disturbing that the sanitized version that most people know. The concentration camps were horrific, but that was only the most visible part of the system. The sheer perniciousness of the ideology is troubling mostly because much of it is still very appealing. IrishSteel has given parts of the party platform and much of it would still be happily accepted by the same progressive people who would pat themselves on the back for being so forward-looking.
I am firmly convinced that most of what went wrong was making social justice a goal. Justice is a bureaucratic replacement for vengeance, so its use in any capacity, especially by a government that feels no legal limits on doing the right thing will only end in disaster. Especially when part of the ideology is that people, in whatever capacity, are the problem, be it from class, race, religion or ethnic make-up. A Final Solution will look awfully appealing after a while and followers will realize they are hypocrites for not endorsing it.
A serious topic, deserves a serious discussion, which in this case, it almost has no hope of seeing.
– jj
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
In a nutshell, Germany lost because Hitler’s delusion of Teutonic destiny and subsequent underestimation of enemy capability and resolve led him to bite off way more than he could chew at one time.[/quote]
Stalingrad.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Eli B wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
In a nutshell, Germany lost because Hitler’s delusion of Teutonic destiny and subsequent underestimation of enemy capability and resolve led him to bite off way more than he could chew at one time.[/quote]
Stalingrad.[/quote]
Effectively, there were a few Stalingrads. Kursk was one of them.[/quote]
True, the real defeat of German in Russia was directly caused by two things - failure to adequately supply the forces there, and the intransigence of Hitler in not allowing Paulus to pull back from Stalingrad.
Had Paulus been allowed to extricate his forces from Stalingrad, Zhukov’s pincer movement and subsequent encirclement would not have succeeded and there would have been an additional 1/3 of million more seasoned, battle-hardened veterans to face the Soviet onslaught.
Most people forget that it took a couple of years for the soviets to push the germans back to Russia with their manpower depleted by Paulus’s loss. Imagine how hard that would have made the outcome for the Russians had he and his men still been in play.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Thanks, jj, you dun larnt me some stuff. 'Preciate it.[/quote]
sho’ 'nuff. :o) I like to pick up heavy shit. Sometimes I read it too…
– jj
Well, here is obscure history.
My paternal grandfather was a German Officer in WWI, and in the equivalent of the reserves in the 1930s (and trained in secret, as Germany could not have an airforce), but a pilot for the national German airline, what is now Lufthansa, I think.
He knew Hermann Goring personally, before he was a Nazi, as they served together in Jagdgeschwader 1, the air squadron of The Red Baron.
Decorated hero, iron cross, and put up for the Blue Max (the rough equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor) by his CO (it was not granted, but still).
He was also very Jewish.
Well, in 1936ish along came a decree that Jewish people couldn’t serve in the military, which was OK, as he was a busy commercial pilot.
Slightly later, in November 1938 (I may have the dates off), it was decreed that Jewish people couldn’t be pilots at all. Couldn’t do lots of things – like live normal lives.
Grandpa petitions Goring, who is nice, but says he is screwed regarding the pilot, but then get pushed through a letter saying that, because of meritorious service to Germany, Grandpa won’t have other restrictions placed on him (like having your house taken, being “relocated” etc) . . . for a while.
Knowing he was eventually screwed, Grandpa put on his military uniform, went and got all the maps of the airfields in Germany (including the secret ones), as he was a respected officer, and few knew he was Jewish.
He changed to his Airline Pilot uniform, took the equivalent of a “dead head” flight to outside of Germany, eventually making his way to South America, and then the United States . . . . where he was denied entry because he was Jewish.
So he got a 2 week tourist visa in Mexico, crossed the border illegally, stole a car, and went to a military airfield where he kind of knew an American military pilot, showed him his maps.
They then went to the CO, who got the recruting SGT, who signed up this 40 year old German Jewish guy as a member of the US Army Air Core.
And he spent his time picking and targeting airfields over Germany, and spotting airfields ---- since he knew the tricks.
Summary:
Revenge is a bitch.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Well, here is obscure history.
My paternal grandfather was a German Officer in WWI, and in the equivalent of the reserves in the 1930s (and trained in secret, as Germany could not have an airforce), but a pilot for the national German airline, what is now Lufthansa, I think.
He knew Hermann Goring personally, before he was a Nazi, as they served together in Jagdgeschwader 1, the air squadron of The Red Baron.
Decorated hero, iron cross, and put up for the Blue Max (the rough equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor) by his CO (it was not granted, but still).
He was also very Jewish.
Well, in 1936ish along came a decree that Jewish people couldn’t serve in the military, which was OK, as he was a busy commercial pilot.
Slightly later, in November 1938 (I may have the dates off), it was decreed that Jewish people couldn’t be pilots at all. Couldn’t do lots of things – like live normal lives.
Grandpa petitions Goring, who is nice, but says he is screwed regarding the pilot, but then get pushed through a letter saying that, because of meritorious service to Germany, Grandpa won’t have other restrictions placed on him (like having your house taken, being “relocated” etc) . . . for a while.
Knowing he was eventually screwed, Grandpa put on his military uniform, went and got all the maps of the airfields in Germany (including the secret ones), as he was a respected officer, and few knew he was Jewish.
He changed to his Airline Pilot uniform, took the equivalent of a “dead head” flight to outside of Germany, eventually making his way to South America, and then the United States . . . . where he was denied entry because he was Jewish.
So he got a 2 week tourist visa in Mexico, crossed the border illegally, stole a car, and went to a military airfield where he kind of knew an American military pilot, showed him his maps.
They then went to the CO, who got the recruting SGT, who signed up this 40 year old German Jewish guy as a member of the US Army Air Core.
And he spent his time picking and targeting airfields over Germany, and spotting airfields ---- since he knew the tricks.
Summary:
Revenge is a bitch.[/quote]
Awesome. My Grandfather was a czech jew and he ran around hungary until the soviets picked him up and put a gun in his hands. Said he mostly just chauffered a drunken soviet officer.
I can’t be the only one interested in the codebreakers of the war. Take Alan Turing for example, one of the key people involved in breaking the Enigma code. Also the reason we can sit here and type these messages to each other.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Well, here is obscure history.[/quote]
Wicked Kewl story! Thanks!
Goering was actually very well liked right after WW I and highly regarded by everyone. His affiliation with Hitler helped the Nazis a lot. Jews served with distinction in WW I for Germany and there were many military cemeteries whose headstones had with Magen Davids on them. The Nazis purposely tried to rewrite history and defaced or destroyed most of them. I remember reading about one of Goering’s Jewish friends who made a direct appeal in the 1930’s to stop the treatment of the Jews. Goering refused to see him and that was when the man decided there was no hope for any of them and he left.
I wonder if this person could have been your grandfather?
– jj
