(DC thread) If the Nazis hadn't 'gone Holocaust', what would the legacy have been?

[norseamd]

If it wasn't for the holocaust it would just be seen as a horrific massive scale war.

If it wasn't for Hitler's inane desire to create bigger and less efficient weapons we'd probably be a part of the German Empire.

The main shame though, if a lone British soldier hadn't taken pity on an injured Nazi soldier in 1918, we may never have had a second World War.

BUT we also wouldn't have superglue, 95% of the medical and technological advancements, and quite probably votes for women, female workers and (slightly more) fair treatment to non-Caucasian ethnicities.

From what Ive read, that story is actually considered most probably false, as apparently Hitler and the British soldier were never even in the same theatre during the time in question.

 

[Ventanni]

This is a difficult thought experiment. It's like cars without rubber. The extremist nature of the Nazis is part of their rise to power. Their belief in German superiority and the oppression of non-Germans, especially Jews, was their motto. Without the ultra oppression of Jews, who would they blame their losses on?

I thank God they lost the war. The Nazis are like ISIS on an immense, industrial scale.

 

[mikeymikec]

This is a difficult thought experiment. It's like cars without rubber. The extremist nature of the Nazis is part of their rise to power. Their belief in German superiority and the oppression of non-Germans, especially Jews, was their motto. Without the ultra oppression of Jews, who would they blame their losses on?

Perhaps the question is just how effective is having a scapegoat to blame a nation's problems on, though frankly I would have thought that if the Nazis basically deported most of the 'undesirables' (even if it was the equivalent of some gulag where survival against the elements is freaking difficult), it would have had the same effect as gassing the poor buggers. However, I guess their extremism led them to believe that execution was the only 'cure'. Perhaps the effectiveness of scapegoating a 'foreigner' was discovered to be a useful tactic by chance.

I thank God they lost the war. The Nazis are like ISIS on an immense, industrial scale.

In their extremism sure, but otherwise ISIS is a clown car in comparison. Even if we executed the best case scenario for allowing ISIS to thrive (by say bombing the living shit out of every 'Muslim' country), thereby creating a similar scenario to pre-WW2 Germany and giving Muslims the most genuine reasons to think they're in mortal danger solely because of their religious beliefs, I doubt that ISIS could wield such a weapon as well as the Nazis did. Only as a result of recent events in America did I learn about the 'blood and soil' narrative for example. The mind games that the Nazis played on the German people were many-layered, whereas ISIS basically hates everyone that aren't them; ISIS would piss away its advantage in such a scenario by for example waging war on different Muslim groups because they aren't quite the flavour of Muslim that ISIS likes (this probably has already happened); ISIS has even wasted its time and resources by blowing up ancient historical sites for which there is no tactical or idealogical advantage.

 

[agent00f]

Only as a result of recent events in America did I learn about the 'blood and soil' narrative for example. The mind games that the Nazis played on the German people were many-layered, whereas ISIS basically hates everyone that aren't them;

No, they're remarkably similar as Ventanni alluded to. It's not really a "game" to trick dummy germans/muslims as much as aligning their self-interests for collective action. The reich was doing pretty well until the allies came along, just as ISIS was similarly. Even charlotesville was hardly a failure given how well it solidified the gop base against the "alt-left".

Of course that strategy also tends to solidify opposition like said allies, but such is life.

 

[Mai72]

IMO, the biggest mistake Hitler made was not fully utilizing his labor camps. Think about it. He had hundreds of thousands of slave labor who could had contributed behind the scenes. Instead of starving and gassing most of his prisoners, he could had kept them well fed and housed them properly. He could had fully clothed them as well. In return, they would had been rested and could had given 100%. Instead, many were contributing at a much lower rate. They were weakened from disease, malnutrition, sleep deprived, etc.

We had a Holocaust. It was the native American Holocaust that wiped out practically 99% of the native population in North America. I'm sure Hitler would had followed the same path.

 

[mikeymikec]

IMO, the biggest mistake Hitler made was not fully utilizing his labor camps. Think about it. He had hundreds of thousands of slave labor who could had contributed behind the scenes. Instead of starving and gassing most of his prisoners, he could had kept them well fed and housed them properly. He could had fully clothed them as well. In return, they would had been rested and could had given 100%. Instead, many were contributing at a much lower rate. They were weakened from disease, malnutrition, sleep deprived, etc.

We had a Holocaust. It was the native American Holocaust that wiped out practically 99% of the native population in North America. I'm sure Hitler would had followed the same path.

I think that comes down to someone else's point basically about would they have been the Nazis (as we know them) if they didn't feel so strongly about 'undesirables' that they weren't gassing them. If Hitler had been more reasonable, would he have got as far as he did to even start WW2 in the first place? Would he even have bothered with it? When one has some serious 'master race' delusions going on, is that really the best person to decide about how best to utilise the 'undesirables'? From what I understand, it seems to me that he thought of them as something more insidious than cockroaches, hence to someone like that, destruction is surely the only vaguely logical option.

Also note that keeping slaves well-fed and maintained costs money, not to mention the long-term needs such as educating newer generations of slaves (because they're going to want craftsmen). Educated and well-maintained slaves also potentially means uprisings.

An interesting thought experiment though would be: if Hitler had started up his own slavery racket (out of his own country's population of 'undesirables') and not started WW2, would other nations have come after him? Would the money made from that racket (and stealing all the assets of the now-slaves) have been enough to regrow Germany and resolve its post WW1 debts (or at least paying them off to the satisfaction of the debtors)?

 

[Mai72]

I think that comes down to someone else's point basically about would they have been the Nazis (as we know them) if they didn't feel so strongly about 'undesirables' that they weren't gassing them. If Hitler had been more reasonable, would he have got as far as he did to even start WW2 in the first place? Would he even have bothered with it? When one has some serious 'master race' delusions going on, is that really the best person to decide about how best to utilise the 'undesirables'? From what I understand, it seems to me that he thought of them as something more insidious than cockroaches, hence to someone like that, destruction is surely the only vaguely logical option.

Also note that keeping slaves well-fed and maintained costs money, not to mention the long-term needs such as educating newer generations of slaves (because they're going to want craftsmen). Educated and well-maintained slaves also potentially means uprisings.

An interesting thought experiment though would be: if Hitler had started up his own slavery racket (out of his own country's population of 'undesirables') and not started WW2, would other nations have come after him? Would the money made from that racket (and stealing all the assets of the now-slaves) have been enough to regrow Germany and resolve its post WW1 debts (or at least paying them off to the satisfaction of the debtors)?

Good points.

Keeping people well fed doesn't mean spending millions on food. It could be grains, vegetables and a little meat. Nothing that drastic, but it would had boosted morale among the prisoners. Check out "A Man's Search for Meaning" by Victor Frankl. Victor talks about the treatment he witnessed. Many prisoners were living on watery soup, slept side by side, bodies infested with lice, feared the gas chamber every second of the day, and many had given up hope. Now, imagine if they were given better accomdations? Germany would had been in a better position. Look at America as an example. Why were we able to end the war? Because we had a constant supply of reinforcements and supplies. That only happened because we had people who worked tiresly behind the scenes. They didn't fear dying. They had hope. They were well fed and had basic necessities.

Hitler could had used the labor camps in the beginning to ramp up the war effort and when he won he could had gassed everyone if he wanted too. Thank God he lost. Just hypothetically speaking, when he won the war he could had then enacted the next phase in his devious plan. That would be to wipe everyone off the face of the Earth who didn't fit in his master plan. That would had been a lot of people.

 

[agent00f]

I think that comes down to someone else's point basically about would they have been the Nazis (as we know them) if they didn't feel so strongly about 'undesirables' that they weren't gassing them. If Hitler had been more reasonable, would he have got as far as he did to even start WW2 in the first place? Would he even have bothered with it? When one has some serious 'master race' delusions going on, is that really the best person to decide about how best to utilise the 'undesirables'? From what I understand, it seems to me that he thought of them as something more insidious than cockroaches, hence to someone like that, destruction is surely the only vaguely logical option.

Also note that keeping slaves well-fed and maintained costs money, not to mention the long-term needs such as educating newer generations of slaves (because they're going to want craftsmen). Educated and well-maintained slaves also potentially means uprisings.

An interesting thought experiment though would be: if Hitler had started up his own slavery racket (out of his own country's population of 'undesirables') and not started WW2, would other nations have come after him? Would the money made from that racket (and stealing all the assets of the now-slaves) have been enough to regrow Germany and resolve its post WW1 debts (or at least paying them off to the satisfaction of the debtors)?

That's why the americans were a lot smarter in that regards to keep the former slaves as lower rungs of an ethnic caste system.

 

[Craig234]

That's why the americans were a lot smarter in that regards to keep the former slaves as lower rungs of an ethnic caste system.

It wasn't some calculation like that. They didn't consider killing all the former slaves and then say 'no, that would be worse for us.'

But sadly, the Nazis were inspired by the American eugenics policies.

 

[agent00f]

It wasn't some calculation like that. They didn't consider killing all the former slaves and then say 'no, that would be worse for us.'

But sadly, the Nazis were inspired by the American eugenics policies.

No, maintaining a caste system for the benefit of those in the advantageous tiers is pretty well calculated. I mean, there was literally a system of laws in many places to ensure it.

 

[Craig234]

That's not what I said. I said that considering killing all of them wasn't a calculation they chose discrimination over.

 

[agent00f]

That's not what I said. I said that considering killing all of them wasn't a calculation they chose discrimination over.

Sure, only because they lost the civil war and thus the right to do whatever they want with chattel, which is why they went with the next best thing.

 

[Craig234]

Sure, only because they lost the civil war and thus the right to do whatever they want with chattel, which is why they went with the next best thing.

No, there's a difference between your statement the reason is they lost the civil war, and my statement that it's not an option they even considered if they could have.

Maybe you couldn't have shot your wife tonight in an argument because your gun was stolen last week. That's not the same thing as if you wouldn't consider shooting her in the argument.

The point is a difference in values in culture. The most the US leaders did was contemplate - as Lincoln did - deporting every African-American person to Africa. Which is not killing all of them.

 

[agent00f]

No, there's a difference between your statement the reason is they lost the civil war, and my statement that it's not an option they even considered if they could have.

Maybe you couldn't have shot your wife tonight in an argument because your gun was stolen last week. That's not the same thing as if you wouldn't consider shooting her in the argument.

The point is a difference in values in culture. The most the US leaders did was contemplate - as Lincoln did - deporting every African-American person to Africa. Which is not killing all of them.

I only said it was smarter to keep ethnic folks as the lower rung of a caste system than to kill them, which it is.

 

[Craig234]

What you said was that the choice between lower caste and killing was "well calculated", implying that they weighed each option.

I was arguing that they didn't weigh each option, and didn't calculate between the two.

 

[agent00f]

What you said was that the choice between lower caste and killing was "well calculated", implying that they weighed each option.

I was arguing that they didn't weigh each option, and didn't calculate between the two.

No, you brought up "calculations". This was my original post:

That's why the americans were a lot smarter in that regards to keep the former slaves as lower rungs of an ethnic caste system.

 

[Craig234]

Your original post implied that the Americans made a choice between a caste system and mass killing. That's what I disagreed with.

You didn't deny it - you further implied it by replying that the caste system was "pretty well calculated.".

Now, if by that you only meant some sort of calculation in how they implemented it, and you agree they didn't consider mass killing, then we agree.

But if you are saying they picked a caste system over mass killing, then we don't.

 

[agent00f]

Your original post implied that the Americans made a choice between a caste system and mass killing. That's what I disagreed with.

You didn't deny it - you further implied it by replying that the caste system was "pretty well calculated.".

Now, if by that you only meant some sort of calculation in how they implemented it, and you agree they didn't consider mass killing, then we agree.

But if you are saying they picked a caste system over mass killing, then we don't.

My original post implies that the people responsible for the choice made the most rationally self-interested one.

 

[Craig234]

My original post implies that the people responsible for the choice made the most rationally self-interested one.

Which implies that they made a choice between a caste system and killing all the black people.

Which is not what happened.

 

[agent00f]

Which implies that they made a choice between a caste system and killing all the black people.

Which is not what happened.

As matter of simple english comprehension it implies they weigh all options and made the best/most viable one.

 

[Craig234]

As matter of simple english comprehension it implies they weigh all options and made the best/most viable one.

Yes, just like you weighed the option this morning of raping your neighbor's children, shooting up the local school, driving over people in the crosswalk, or just having breakfast. You decided between all those, considering each, and then decided to just have breakfast.

 

[agent00f]

Yes, just like you weighed the option this morning of raping your neighbor's children, shooting up the local school, driving over people in the crosswalk, or just having breakfast. You decided between all those, considering each, and then decided to just have breakfast.

Keep in mind you're the one here who's bringing up all those other irrational options.

 

[Craig234]

No, you're the one who brought the irrational option of the people considering killing all former slaves up. I see the analogy was beyond you and that this has no purpose to keep repeating the same thing. I've made the point clearly and don't plan to repeat it.

 

[Fern]

I think even if the Jewish issue were removed from the calculation, Nazi's would be still widely reviled/hated. When your country/city/home is being bombed to h3ll and your family and friends killed, tortured and/or imprisoned you don't need any other reason to hate them.

And my impression is that the Jewish issue/holocaust angle is emphasized more over here than it is in Europe.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

The holocaust was not only Jewish people - the Nazis killed many groups, including socialists, homosexual people, and Gypsies.