Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The 'Nazi national community'

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    Over in sugar-land Der Staudi is fond of pointing out to Dennis that the Nazi s did not rule under a reign of terror and instead wielded power by getting what
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 4, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Over in sugar-land Der Staudi is fond of pointing out to Dennis that the Nazi's did not rule under a reign of terror and instead wielded power by getting what he calls the 'German national community' to co-operate with them. The Nazis are not a subject I've ever cared to go too deeply into, partly for fear of never returning, but I remember getting a lot of understanding from a book recommended by a friend (a couple of decades ago now), which was Richard Grunberger's Social History of the Third Reich. It was apparent from this book that the Nazis had indeed created a system of terror for anyone that disagreed with them, and people were encouraged to turn in anyone showing signs of disloyalty to the regime; thus husbands shopped wives and children parents.

      There is a new biography out of Reinhard Heydrich, aka 'the hangman' or 'the young, evil god of death', by the German scholar Robert Gerwarth. The book is reviewed in the Times Literary Supplement by Richard J Evans, president of Wolfson College Cambridge: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=417638. Halfway down the review Evans comments:

      "Sensibly, Gerwarth will have no truck with the view, fashionable among some historians, that the Third Reich was a "dictatorship by consent" in which terror and intimidation played only a minimal role. The Gestapo and other agencies of the regime ruthlessly repressed opposition and dissent from the very beginning."

      Quite clearly, this is the opposite view from the one Der Staudi has been retailing. The truth, no doubt, lies somewhere in the middle. The review finishes with a reasonable point, that undermines Der Staudi's claim that we can ever understand reality by piling up facts from the archives and reading the ever larger volumes of writing on the Third Reich:

      "Gerwarth solves many of the riddles of Heydrich's life convincingly, but he does not in the end explain how a man who orders the death of millions can weep while playing a Mozart sonata; perhaps nobody can."

      Other reviewers have pointed out that Heydrich regarded the slavic people, such as those in the Moravian and Bohemian territories he was governor of, as 'sub-human vermin'. Der Staudi is fond of claiming the anthroposophical movement as a fellow traveller with that of the Nazis. It's always seemed to me that they are diametric opposites, in spite of the 'anthro wackos' of the 30's Germany, who were members of the Nazi party and the anthro party (did they have any idea what they were doing?). Following this line of thought, Steiner, of course, regarded the slavic people as in a way a superior one, as they were going to become the most representatives people of the 6th, slavic epoch - that of universal brotherhood - that is to follow our own epoch.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch.
    • ted.wrinch
      Sorry - that review was actually in the Times Higher Education supplement, and not the TLS. T. Ted Wrinch
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 4, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Sorry - that review was actually in the Times Higher Education supplement, and not the TLS.

        T.

        Ted Wrinch

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
        >
        > Over in sugar-land Der Staudi is fond of pointing out to Dennis that the Nazi's did not rule under a reign of terror and instead wielded power by getting what he calls the 'German national community' to co-operate with them. The Nazis are not a subject I've ever cared to go too deeply into, partly for fear of never returning, but I remember getting a lot of understanding from a book recommended by a friend (a couple of decades ago now), which was Richard Grunberger's Social History of the Third Reich. It was apparent from this book that the Nazis had indeed created a system of terror for anyone that disagreed with them, and people were encouraged to turn in anyone showing signs of disloyalty to the regime; thus husbands shopped wives and children parents.
        >
        > There is a new biography out of Reinhard Heydrich, aka 'the hangman' or 'the young, evil god of death', by the German scholar Robert Gerwarth. The book is reviewed in the Times Literary Supplement by Richard J Evans, president of Wolfson College Cambridge: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=417638. Halfway down the review Evans comments:
        >
        > "Sensibly, Gerwarth will have no truck with the view, fashionable among some historians, that the Third Reich was a "dictatorship by consent" in which terror and intimidation played only a minimal role. The Gestapo and other agencies of the regime ruthlessly repressed opposition and dissent from the very beginning."
        >
        > Quite clearly, this is the opposite view from the one Der Staudi has been retailing. The truth, no doubt, lies somewhere in the middle. The review finishes with a reasonable point, that undermines Der Staudi's claim that we can ever understand reality by piling up facts from the archives and reading the ever larger volumes of writing on the Third Reich:
        >
        > "Gerwarth solves many of the riddles of Heydrich's life convincingly, but he does not in the end explain how a man who orders the death of millions can weep while playing a Mozart sonata; perhaps nobody can."
        >
        > Other reviewers have pointed out that Heydrich regarded the slavic people, such as those in the Moravian and Bohemian territories he was governor of, as 'sub-human vermin'. Der Staudi is fond of claiming the anthroposophical movement as a fellow traveller with that of the Nazis. It's always seemed to me that they are diametric opposites, in spite of the 'anthro wackos' of the 30's Germany, who were members of the Nazi party and the anthro party (did they have any idea what they were doing?). Following this line of thought, Steiner, of course, regarded the slavic people as in a way a superior one, as they were going to become the most representatives people of the 6th, slavic epoch - that of universal brotherhood - that is to follow our own epoch.
        >
        > T.
        >
        > Ted Wrinch.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.