South vs. North?

[IvySpice]

Well, sure, back it up. But I doubt you have a source showing that this was the general rule all over Germany. In many places -- particularly smaller cities like Nuremberg and in country towns -- the SS officers were the glitterati everybody wanted to associate with. Anybody who was anybody went to the rallies. That was the heartland of the Nazi base. A liberal neighborhood in Berlin =/= Germany in general.

[macallan25]

I mean, I could write for days about it. If you want some sources to look at/read then i'll provide some....although I wouldn't think you would really actually go out and find them.

I never said it was a "general rule" all over Germany.....I'm actually not what you are talking about. In some instances, you are right about the country towns, however, there was absolutely resistance to what the Nazis were doing, particularly in areas where they were destroying farmland for railroads, munitions depots, etc. Watch the film Viehjud Levi. Good depiction of country life during the Nazi rise to power.

But as far as the Holocaust/Final Solution being "socially acceptable" I still have to disagree. Why do you think the officials at the Wansee Conference tried to keep the plans for the Final Solution a huge secret? There were plenty of political delegates there who absolutely knew that it would bite Germany in the ass if the Nazis continued with their planned course of action concerning Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies. Read up on Wilhelm Stuckart. He co-authored the Nuremberg Laws and was one of the biggest opponents to the Final Solution because he knew it would be a bureaucratic and social nightmare.

Couple excellent books:
Ian Kershaw: "The Nazie Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation"
Ronnie S. Landau: "The Nazi Holocaust"

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by IvySpice

In many places -- particularly smaller cities like Nuremberg and in country towns -- the SS officers were the glitterati everybody wanted to associate with. Anybody who was anybody went to the rallies. That was the heartland of the Nazi base.

Yeah, but to say that this equals it being "socially acceptable" is an over-generalization, I think. Does the turnout in places like Nuremburg mean that all those who turned out were true believers who made the Nazi policies socially acceptable, or can a fair amount of it be attributed to people who were too afraid for their own security to disagree with or challenge the establishment? Many members of the Communist Party in the USSR did not really believe in what the Party stood for, and I would guess that the same could be said of many members of the National Socialist Party. That's the way it works in any one-party state.

I'm not saying that those who quietly went along should be equated to those who actively resisted, but neither should they be equated to those who truly believed in what the Party stood for. There's some grey here in figuring out when "acceptable to those who decide" is the same as "socially acceptable" across the population.

Originally Posted by IvySpice

Because if there were no negative social consequences to doing those things, then they were, by definition, socially acceptable.

Here's where I think we disagree. "Socially acceptable" means accepted or approved of by society in general, not just the absence of negative social consequences. Something may not have wide approval but still be tolerated because society in general believes it has little choice otherwise. Many Nazi policies may have been de jure socially acceptable (acceptable because the law and force of the state made them acceptable), but not de facto socially acceptable.

[IvySpice]

Many members of the Communist Party in the USSR did not really believe in what the Party stood for

But that doesn't mean that it was socially unacceptable to be a party member. On the contrary, your point suggests that there was enormous social pressure to go along with the majority. Which means that it was socially acceptable -- in fact, socially expected -- to do so.

Why do you think the officials at the Wansee Conference tried to keep the plans for the Final Solution a huge secret?

Largely because Jews wouldn't get on the trains if they knew where they were going. It was critical to keep up the illusion that there would be a life in camp: labeling the luggage, etc. But everyone in Europe knew that Jews (and Gypsies, and gays, and Communists, etc.) were being tormented in every possible way short of gassing them -- they were kicked out of their homes, schools and businesses, branded, segregated, rounded up, and deported. Frankly, you didn't need to know that they were being gassed to know that a gigantic crime and outrage against humanity was being perpetrated. It was well known, and it was tolerated.

There were plenty of upper-class people in the South who (according to their diaries) knew darn well that slavery was evil, but they also knew that their own position in society was at risk if they spoke up or joined abolitionist groups. The fact that they stayed quiet out of fear and social pressure, just like some Germans at Nuremberg rallies may have, doesn't change the fact that it was socially acceptable to go along with the system and socially unacceptable to object.

ere's where I think we disagree. "Socially acceptable" means accepted or approved of by society in general, not just the absence of negative social consequences.

Indeed, this is where we disagree. In my opinion, if there are no negative social consequences to a behavior, then the behavior is de facto accepted in that society. I don't think it matters whether a silent bystander feels disapproval deep in his heart, or is secretly pleased by what he sees. It's behavior that determines social rules, not feelings.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by IvySpice

Largely because Jews wouldn't get on the trains if they knew where they were going. It was critical to keep up the illusion that there would be a life in camp: labeling the luggage, etc. But everyone in Europe knew that Jews (and Gypsies, and gays, and Communists, etc.) were being tormented in every possible way short of gassing them -- they were kicked out of their homes, schools and businesses, branded, segregated, rounded up, and deported. Frankly, you didn't need to know that they were being gassed to know that a gigantic crime and outrage against humanity was being perpetrated. It was well known, and it was tolerated.

Please explain to me how it was "tolerated". Please do. I am dumbfounded that you think the Holocaust was socially accepted simply because there were no negative consequences towards those who disagreed with it. To be honest, I'll disagree with that as well....strongly. There were thousands upon thousands of people in Germany that were put on trial, deported, or executed for operating as opponents towards the regime or those who verged on dissent. In the political realms of Germany, high end non-Jewish politicians who opposed the Nazi party only had their lives spared because they stayed clear of organized opposition. To say that their were no negative consequences is very ignorant. Futhermore, I don't think it is accurate to assume that if the Jews knew about the Final Solution they simply wouldn't "get on the trains". Do you honestly think the Einsatzgruppen wouldn't have simply forced them on? I have to think they could simply out of fear of being executed if they didn't comply.

You should read up on Ernst Nolte. Excellent works on comparative history between the Nazi and Soviet Regimes.

[joproper]

It really is a big divide, i like to think that southern fraternities are more conservative and are closer to the classic frat boy stereotypes