Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hanslanda]

News flash: Evil humans still human! More at eleven.

[Doomblade187]

News flash: Evil humans still human! More at eleven.

*Eagerly waits for eleven for further news.*

[Reelya]

Even one of the most reviled humans in history has their good points.  *shock*

But we also have a very skewed version of what the personal life of someone like Hitler was like. Hitler wasn't boiling babies for breakfast or anything like that, there's this idea that no matter how horrid and vile something is, Hitler would be there quietly tucking into his liverwurst while it's going on in the background. That couldn't be less true. The high-up Nazis kept all the unpleasant stuff far far away from themselves and their loved ones. It's easier to lie when you demand not to be told the details.

It's no different to e.g. a CEO who oversees a company who are e.g. torturing and murdering Amazonian indians over logging and mining disputes. Almost all CEOs and dictators keep their own hands clean, and keep their immediate families well away from anything unpleasant, no matter how vile the things done in the name of the organization (bloodthirsty lunatics like Idi Amin are the exception not the rule). You can bet that Hitler didn't know many of the operational specifics of the Final Solution, because he had enough power to choose to not be told exactly what was going on. There's a reason that the death camps were mostly in Poland, not Germany, and that's because most of the Nazis leaders didn't want that stuff happening anywhere near them. There was also a fear that anyone directly involved in the operations was tainted/dirty. e.g. it was seen as necessary, in an abstract sense, however the organization kept the actual conduct of the plan well at arm's length.

[Lord Shonus]

There is strong evidence that Himmler, at least, was kept current on all operational details and methods, although it is not certain how much he directly witnessed. Direct evidence that this was passed on to Hitler is sketchy, but there's reason to believe that he knew most of the operational specifics.

EDIT: The concentration camps were built in Poland to dispose of Polish Jews. German Jews were primarily disposed of at camps in Germany.

[Reelya]

There is strong evidence that Himmler, at least, was kept current on all operational details and methods, although it is not certain how much he directly witnessed. Direct evidence that this was passed on to Hitler is sketchy, but there's reason to believe that he knew most of the operational specifics.

EDIT: The concentration camps were built in Poland to dispose of Polish Jews. German Jews were primarily disposed of at camps in Germany.

"operational specifics" known by a top-level leader would probably just be numbers, locations and transport routes. specifics of how people are treated are not the types of details that make their way up to the head of the army. The top-level of any organization only gets brief summaries at best. Details are strictly on a "need to know" basis in basically every organization ever: if knowing those things didn't benefit Hitler, his briefings wouldn't involve them at all. e.g. Hitler had no reason to want to be aware of the details, and his subordinates would have no reason to want to inform Hitler of any of that.

[Lord Shonus]

We are talking about the same man who is known to have directly intervened in the details of military equipment design (most notably the Panther tank and the Me-262 fighter), which is also something that no ordinary head of state would be involved in. Normal rules of organization were not normal in the Third Reich, which is part of the reason the Reich would have failed spectacularly even if it hadn't picked a fight with three different nations with the power to flatten it.

[Reelya]

Hitler did care about the technology to carry out the war, but he was a military man by profession. That doesn't imply that he wanted or needed detailed accounts of what happens in concentration camps to prisoners. He cared about things that would help win the war. Those details wouldn't help with him winning the war.

sure, Hitler was hands-on with some things. But given that you can only be involved in so many pies that doesn't imply he was hands-on with everything. That just wouldn't make sense. Normally, leaders who are hands-on with a specific aspect have less attention for other aspects, not more. Hitler probably knew the abstract details of the Final Solution, but I'm pretty certain he wouldn't want to hear any specifics. Just like hearing that 1000 of people in an earthquake in some third-world country doesn't affect us emotionally like a smaller tragedy closer to home would.

[Lord Shonus]

This is a bit silly to be arguing about, I've had enough to drink to get stupidly invested in it, and it isn't really germane to the thread or your overall point. Best to drop it.

[Loud Whispers]

But we also have a very skewed version of what the personal life of someone like Hitler was like. Hitler wasn't boiling babies for breakfast or anything like that, there's this idea that no matter how horrid and vile something is, Hitler would be there quietly tucking into his liverwurst while it's going on in the background. That couldn't be less true. The high-up Nazis kept all the unpleasant stuff far far away from themselves and their loved ones. It's easier to lie when you demand not to be told the details.

It's no different to e.g. a CEO who oversees a company who are e.g. torturing and murdering Amazonian indians over logging and mining disputes. Almost all CEOs and dictators keep their own hands clean, and keep their immediate families well away from anything unpleasant, no matter how vile the things done in the name of the organization (bloodthirsty lunatics like Idi Amin are the exception not the rule). You can bet that Hitler didn't know many of the operational specifics of the Final Solution, because he had enough power to choose to not be told exactly what was going on. There's a reason that the death camps were mostly in Poland, not Germany, and that's because most of the Nazis leaders didn't want that stuff happening anywhere near them.

Also similar in phenomena as to the hedge fund manager who successfully exploits market futures to immensely enrich themselves and their clients; oblivious to the consequences for those whose livelihoods rely upon the commodities being traded. In the past, men who knew nothing of wheat and corn, its farming, transporting or selling would push prices up and down, making peasants starve or farmers go out of business. Today men who know nothing of minerals and energy, its procurement, transporting or uses, push prices up and down, with too many consequences to list whilst drunk.

I find the commercial variety of this phenomena more interesting than those done by military leaders. For those, even Hitler, I believe military leaders have a much easier time accepting the total destruction of their enemy, including civilian targets. Carthage must be destroyed; such sentiments displayed by the Soviets and Nazis was displayed for example in allied strategic bombing of Germany or fire bombing of Japan - amongst the high commands of all major powers, it was exceedingly easy to view the eradication of the enemy's fighting strength in totality as the objective, and the civilian body a viable target to achieving that objective. The most interesting examples to me are the great nomadic conquerors. For while the Imperialists of China and Europe had many petty governors willing to eradicate to expand, few forces have been so able to wipe out entire civilizations as the nomadic conquerors - one regrets that no one was brave enough to ask Genghis Khan if he regretted all the death he ordered, oversaw, and personally participated in. Very much not a backseat participant to the slaughter.
Commercial leaders however? It's a little bit of "Thank you for smoking." If you are fully aware that your decisions will be the ruin of others for your gain, it may be perhaps unsurprising that those in the top are people who self-select or must develop for the traits which make successful CEOs. Thus, all the positive traits that make good leaders, coupled with a low empathy for others.

"operational specifics" known by a top-level leader would probably just be numbers, locations and transport routes. specifics of how people are treated are not the types of details that make their way up to the head of the army. The top-level of any organization only gets brief summaries at best.

To add more detail, how people treated was passed on to higher ups, specifically Himmler, but I don't know if Hitler was given or interested in receiving reports about the manner of deaths in execution camps beyond the numbers, efficiency, materiel costs, and certainly before the late stages of the war, whether they died from forced labour, disease or execution. That said, just because the reports might not bother to include such details, does not mean Hitler would have been ignorant of them. The officers who witnessed or conducted the various roundings up, executions and operations of the death camps talked about their experiences with their colleagues and superiors, and I doubt that this word of mouth failed to reach Hitler

*EDIT
Also, while this may not apply to state organized genocide, in many cases the testing of new weapons or strategies intended to wipe out whole towns and cities, the higher ups were interested in knowing the details of what they had inflicted

This is a bit silly to be arguing about, I've had enough to drink to get stupidly invested in it, and it isn't really germane to the thread or your overall point. Best to drop it.

tbh drunk history is bretty dank

[Reelya]

A quote (attributed to Joseph Stalin but who actually knows) is that "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic". It's easier both to do evil and justify evil when you treat it as a mass statistic. This is probably also how someone like Hitler managed to cope with ordering millions of deaths yet treats his dog well.

And the psychology here isn't fundamentally different to how the people who ordered and conducted the Hiroshima bombing, killing 120,000 men, women, and children managed to sleep at night. You know abstractly that the terrible things happened, but they happened on such a mass scale that the individual horror of it all just blends together. Pretty much ever power has at one time or another ordered the mass-killing of civilians with an "the end justifies the means" argument.

[Loud Whispers]

A quote from Joseph Stalin is that "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic". It's easier both to do evil and justify evil when you treat it as a mass statistic. This is probably also how someone like Hitler managed to cope with ordering millions of deaths yet treats his dog well.

And the psychology here isn't fundamentally different to how the people who ordered and conducted the Hiroshima bombing, killing 120,000 men, women, and children managed to sleep at night. You know abstractly that the terrible things happened, but they happened on such a mass scale that the individual horror of it all just blends together. Pretty much ever power has at one time or another ordered the mass-killing of civilians with an "the end justifies the means" argument.

The easiest way to do evil is to not consider it evil. Consider for example Stalin watching the show trials of the loyal ministers and commanders he was purging, as they begged for mercy. He was indifferent and resolute in their unwarranted execution. This is why I mention Genghis Khan, the nomadic conquerors and the petty governors, who did observe (or even personally participate) their inflicted slaughter of others, and were A-OK with it. It is easier to justify the liquidation of most of your country to the rest of your country when it's just statistics, but on the question of personal conscience, there will always be people who are just completely chill with the idea of deleting their personal Carthage. There will be those for whom, no argument is needed, it simply follows that killing their enemy is natural. This pattern can be seen whenever a stable regime collapses and is replaced by dynamic warlords, from the liberal revolution, to communist revolutions, to nationalist revolutions, to islamist revolutions and so forth. France, China, Russia, Syria, throughout time - It is why I say the simulation of armed US citizens vs the US government, the victor would be neither, it would be local US warlords ;P

*EDIT
I suppose the tl;dr is, it's easier for someone to kill lots of people when they are already fine with killing individuals

[Egan_BW]

I should set myself up to be a warlord, then.

[Loud Whispers]

I should set myself up to be a warlord, then.

I wouldn't recommend it, the first warlord usually gets rekt and replaced by their 2nd in command

On my last note I'm reminded of WWII Japan not signing the international agreement to protect POWs, on the basis that they'd have to treat prisoners better than their own infantry. Different people have different moralities, and I'm reminded of the great Khan Hülegü, who upon eradicating Baghdad's people and its library, was not only completely ok with destroying all of them, actually claimed the moral highground when he found out the enemy Caliph Al Musta'Sim had loads of treasure. He locked Musta'Sim in a room with no food or water, and when Musta'Sim requested food and water, Hülegü sent him a tray of his own gold. When Musta'Sim could not eat the gold, Hülegü berated him, saying if he could not eat it, why did he hoard it? Why did he not use it to pay for soldiers to defend against his army?
If Hülegü could genocide an enemy leader's people and claim the moral highground against them, I don't think it would be that much of a jump to imagine industrial leaders who had cast aside notions of humane execution could do so too. (The idea of the guillotine as humane execution is its own bucket of terror)

[redwallzyl]

Well it was humane compared to a guy with a sword. At least the guillotine has a hard time missing you and accidentally cutting of other bits.

[Reelya]

(The idea of the guillotine as humane execution is its own bucket of terror)

The guillotine was humane compared to the array of ancien régime execution methods, which stipulated hanging, burning, breaking wheel, boiling and dismemberment, which were crime-specific. e.g. counterfeiters were boiled alive. Decapitation was reserved as the honorable death for nobles. In this perspective, the claims that the guillotine was more humane make perfect sense. It standardized the method of execution for all people with a means which involved no torture at all, and was also less accident-prone version of the method normally reserved for nobility - traditional decapitation with an axe lead to many botched attempts, causing immense suffering.

The reason we only hear the horror stories about the guillotine, and not the details that the old regime boiled people alive is that this time it was nobles getting the chop. That's literally the only logical reason to demonize that method in particular.

The true horror lurking in the claims that the guillotine was the humane method wasn't the method itself, it's what it tells you about what French executions were like before that. Also, look up the English list of death-penalty offenses nicknamed the "bloody code" which is contemporary with the Napoleonic Code. It's pretty interesting stuff, and an example of how the victors write the history:

In 1688 there were 50 offences on the statute book punishable by death, but that number had almost quadrupled by 1776, and it reached 220 by the end of the century. Most of the new laws introduced during that period were concerned with the defence of property, which some commentators have interpreted as a form of class suppression of the poor by the rich. George Savile, 1st Marquess of Halifax, expressed a contemporary view when he said that "Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen".[4] Grand larceny was one of the crimes that drew the death penalty; it was defined as the theft of goods worth more than 12 pence, about one-twentieth of the weekly wage for a skilled worker at the time. As the 18th century proceeded, jurors often deliberately under-assessed the value of stolen goods, in order to avoid making a sentence of death mandatory.

Yeah, so English jurors had to rig the system so that paupers weren't mandatorily executed for stealing a few pence. These are the guys cited as the good guys against the murderous French revolutionaries. But of course the English are in the clear here, because the people being executed were the poor, not nobles. Remember, at the very time the guillotines were running, the UK was loading the Irish into plague-ridden ships and sending them as slave labour to Australia.