WW2 politics, and leading up to the War and beyond...

[Gadianton]

If you are refereeing to many SS soldiers becoming stressed and psychologically unnerved by the having to shoot the Jews, even Himmler....then show me how that is not true?

You offer this pitiful observation as if it absolves their moral culpability for what they did. Does the fact that many Nazis were unnerved by killing Jews absolve their guilt? If not, what's your point? The same psychological barriers continued with the gas chambers. What's YOUR point? Why is this important for you and Cooper to convince the world? Who out there in the world disagrees? HINT: The only impulse for disagreement comes when the observation is built into Cooper's careful curation of data to show the Allies more bad than people think and the Nazis less bad.

I've made a similar observation to yours elsewhere, discussing the differences between Nazis and neo-Nazis (MAGA?). The Nazis embarked on their duty-bound mission of mass atrocity without any psychological preparation. No Milgram experiments to help. Many Nazis were "unprepared" and got swept up in the unexpected consequences of their decisions. A normal person is supposed to learn about the situation and think, "holy crap, if it happened to those people, what would stop it from happening to me?" This fact should cause deep introspection, not justification. Not, "well, that guy who pulled the trigger wasn't so different from me, he felt bad just as I would, I guess he wasn't that bad." Neo-Nazis know what they are owning. They are steeped in the justification that would allow such a thing to happen more easily the next time.

Squeamishness is a barrier to medical school just like sympathy and squeamishness together is a barrier to ethnic cleansing, one that must be overcome. The Nazis stumbled their way through overcoming the latter. Just as there are instances of Nazis "feeling bad" there are plenty of instances of Nazis not feeling bad. Did the Butcher of Lyon feel bad about it? Did anyone else feeling bad stop the Butcher from butchering in plain sight? There were plenty of instances of soldiers also who, as I remember the commentator putting it, tucked their kids in and kissed them goodnight and then got up in the morning for a round of Killing Jews. There were also plenty of soldiers who participated in killing and then when the war ended, were just fine, "well that was awkward" and went on with their lives. There are also plenty of instances of self-justification and psychological preparation. Apologetics, not true guilt.

In the Netflix series I referenced earlier, I recall the intro scene was a police captain (or similar) who was a big-hearted jovial fellow who loved his boys, brought the news to his men exactly what would be required on their next excursion of round-ups, and he did so with tears. He knew it was too much to ask, but these were the orders. He allowed any of his men to bow out, to step away if they couldn't do it; there was no shame in it, and he fully understood.

There appears to be a two volume set of books written that takes up this question specifically.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... experience.

The name of the book series is, Understanding Willing Participants. Just read that one page for a good summary of the way we ought to be contextualizing observations about "Nazi humanity".

[Chap]

You are using a falsehood to try to support your opinion. And, since you've done this before, to my surprise, please don't even think about writing something like, "okay, well so I was maybe wrong about the details, but my point still stands!"

That's illogical, lazy and reflects very poor analytical skills.

I am sorry to say that what you said here is the simple truth about Markk's posts.

You can explain his confusions endlessly, show him evidence that runs flat counter to what he has repeatedly claimed, but never, never, will he say "I see I have got things seriously wrong, and I shall have to think again".

How does Ceeboo think you should deal with such situations, I wonder?

[canpakes]

I’ll just keep repeating the obvious as many times as you want to dance around it. Just like I can keep repeating the original questions that don’t ask you anything about ‘temporary solutions’ and that you can’t bring yourself to answer:

1. Can you explain why the Nazis “kept the Jews in ghettos and worked and starved them to death for the most part, when they were not beating and shooting them”… but then felt stressed when they rounded them up and couldn’t starve them fast enough while stuffed into concentration camps?

2. Do you believe Cooper’s claim?

It is such a dumb question I answered before....

Read: by Markk » Tue Jun 24, 2025 9:24 pm

I actually asked you a question in my OP, I was waiting for you to answer.

1. I gave a response to question one of my post that you obviously missed. It was a temporary solution while the leadership, I guess primarily Himmler, Heydrich, and Hitler, figured out their options. If you watched the podcast or read the posts, according to Cooper, which I agree, Germany was not prepared for handling millions of Jews, POWs, and political prisoners collectively. This seems totally plausible to me, and I plan to read more about this. It is something I never thought much about before I heard his take on it.

2. What claim? ...I said I agreed with his assertion that Germany was not prepared for taking care of the millions of folks they were going to "capture" and or "arrest." I also said I disagreed with his take on Churchill.

You didn’t answer either question. I didn’t ask you if they were prepared, nor did I ask about logistics.

I'll add to 1. That the ghettos served as the temporary solution, until the camps could be built and put into operation. I have no idea what you mean about them feeling stressed, it is just a dumb statement. If you are refereeing to many SS soldiers becoming stressed and psychologically unnerved by the having to shoot the Jews, even Himmler....then show me how that is not true?

If it’s a dumb statement, then take your complaint to Cooper. This is what he’s asserting.

As for asking German soldiers if they were stressed from having to shoot, gas, beat or otherwise kill Jews … my question concerns the Nazi government and their plan for total elimination of the Jews. Their ‘final solution’. And I can’t ask individual soldiers anyway; they’re dead now, just like all of their millions of victims.

In regard to 2. and maybe you missed this also....this is what Cooper said that I was discussing, and yes I agree with this, as does Huck, Morley, Gad, and in all honesty history,....you disagree with this, why?

You’re agreeing that the Holocaust - that being the extermination of over 6 million Jews - occurred because the Nazis were low on food, and so killed their prisoners out of sympathy? Otherwise the Nazis would have just fed them and kept them healthy and happy until the end of the war? Because that’s what Cooper is implying.

Is this what you believe, then?

You keep asking the same question over and over as if you have some kind of smoking gum revelation that the Ghettos were not a temporary measure, okay, fair enough, so show me that they were permanent, and that the Germans were actually prepared?

Prepared for what, Markk?

To kill them, regardless of in a ghetto, a killing center, or a concentration camp? What is the difference regardless of how ‘prepared’ they were with any option?

Do you believe that the Nazis did not intend to kill their prisoners?

That’s the focus of the question.

[Some Schmo]

I can't believe that there are people in this country doing Nazi apologetics now. Nazis were always the bad guys when I was young. Attempting genocide tends to give groups that reputation, and it was never up for debate. I guess that's because the Nazis were in the closet, and now they're coming out like cockroaches exposed to light.

Unreal.

[Kishkumen]

I can't believe that there are people in this country doing Nazi apologetics now. Nazis were always the bad guys when I was young. Attempting genocide tends to give groups that reputation, and it was never up for debate. I guess that's because the Nazis were in the closet, and now they're coming out like cockroaches exposed to light.

Unreal.

It is unreal, and yet it really is happening. Talk about grounds for despair. There are people in our midst defending Nazis and voting for today’s fascists. They have lost their moral compass. It is devastatingly sad.

[huckelberry]

I suspect concentrating Jews into a dense Ghetto served a practical purpose. It made Jews easy to locate. It was more calming than machine guns would be further easing the problem of rounding all the Jews up for future disposal.

Bullets were needed for military action.

[Markk]

I suspect concentrating Jews into a dense Ghetto served a practical purpose. It made Jews easy to locate. It was more calming than machine guns would be further easing the problem of rounding all the Jews up for future disposal.

Bullets were needed for military action.

Yes it keeps them concentrated for sure. And they had a free labor pool I suppose. In my opinion it is important to understand that the "final solution" means, in short, the "final solution of the Jewish question." It started with discrimination, stealing their businesses and property, then the invasions, the ghettos and forced labor, and in the end, the mass extermination camps and killing chambers.

In 39, many believe it just wasn't clear, in regard to means and methods, to the "final solution." It wasn't even really implicated until 1941.

Here is a interesting article from PBS that lends to your general point that bullets are cheaper than gas, and mine how the final solution for the Jewish question evolved.

https://www.pbs.org/auschwitz/40-45/killing/

[Markk]

It is such a dumb question I answered before....

Read: by Markk » Tue Jun 24, 2025 9:24 pm

You didn’t answer either question. I didn’t ask you if they were prepared, nor did I ask about logistics.

I'll add to 1. That the ghettos served as the temporary solution, until the camps could be built and put into operation. I have no idea what you mean about them feeling stressed, it is just a dumb statement. If you are refereeing to many SS soldiers becoming stressed and psychologically unnerved by the having to shoot the Jews, even Himmler....then show me how that is not true?

If it’s a dumb statement, then take your complaint to Cooper. This is what he’s asserting.

As for asking German soldiers if they were stressed from having to shoot, gas, beat or otherwise kill Jews … my question concerns the Nazi government and their plan for total elimination of the Jews. Their ‘final solution’. And I can’t ask individual soldiers anyway; they’re dead now, just like all of their millions of victims.

In regard to 2. and maybe you missed this also....this is what Cooper said that I was discussing, and yes I agree with this, as does Huck, Morley, Gad, and in all honesty history,....you disagree with this, why?

You’re agreeing that the Holocaust - that being the extermination of over 6 million Jews - occurred because the Nazis were low on food, and so killed their prisoners out of sympathy? Otherwise the Nazis would have just fed them and kept them healthy and happy until the end of the war? Because that’s what Cooper is implying.

Is this what you believe, then?

You keep asking the same question over and over as if you have some kind of smoking gum revelation that the Ghettos were not a temporary measure, okay, fair enough, so show me that they were permanent, and that the Germans were actually prepared?

Prepared for what, Markk?

To kill them, regardless of in a ghetto, a killing center, or a concentration camp? What is the difference regardless of how ‘prepared’ they were with any option?

Do you believe that the Nazis did not intend to kill their prisoners?

That’s the focus of the question.

Lol, you have no idea what you are even talking about now.

Cakes: Do you believe that the Nazis did not intend to kill their prisoners?

That’s the focus of the question.

Well, if you have been reading, it wasn't clear in the beginning according to history.

Here is a quote from the PBS page I linked in my last post.

The Nazis did not start World War II with a plan to eliminate the Jews. This solution evolved—especially from 1939 to 1941—as they tried different techniques to accomplish their goals. Particularly in Germany and Poland camp commandants experimented with various killing methodologies and consulted with one another on their successes and failures. The ability of a single camp to kill 2,000-3,000 people per hour took years to achieve. At first, though, murder was done at close range-man-to-man, woman, or child.

[canpakes]

Do you believe that the Nazis did not intend to kill their prisoners?

That’s the focus of the question.

Well, if you have been reading, it wasn't clear in the beginning according to history.

Here is a quote from the PBS page I linked in my last post.

The Nazis did not start World War II with a plan to eliminate the Jews. This solution evolved—especially from 1939 to 1941—as they tried different techniques to accomplish their goals. Particularly in Germany and Poland camp commandants experimented with various killing methodologies and consulted with one another on their successes and failures. The ability of a single camp to kill 2,000-3,000 people per hour took years to achieve. At first, though, murder was done at close range-man-to-man, woman, or child.

Wow, you really don’t want to answer if you believe that the Nazis did not intend to kill their prisoners. : D

Regarding your passage above: allow me to point out that not having a plan on how to execute a goal does not imply that the goal does not exist. The passage notes that the Nazis hadn’t figured out the optimal way to achieve that goal of killing them. The second and third sentences support that assertion. You’re misinterpreting the passage, but I’ve never asked you about ‘temporary plans’ anyway.

Cooper, on the other hand, implies that the Nazis eventually decided to kill the Jews by (insert your choice of method) because they couldn’t take care of them all after having rounded up the Jews that they didn’t manage to kill in the ghettos. It was a humane response to kill them sooner rather than later after only killing most of them initially, in other words, according to him. Read the transcript.

Do you believe Cooper’s assertion, and do you believe that if the Nazis were rolling in unlimited supplies of matzo and gefilte fish that they would have just kept their Jewish prisoners happily alive and well fed?

This is a super simple couple of questions, and your refusal to answer them is a bit … odd.

[Markk]

Well, if you have been reading, it wasn't clear in the beginning according to history.

Here is a quote from the PBS page I linked in my last post.

Wow, you really don’t want to answer if you believe that the Nazis did not intend to kill their prisoners. : D

Regarding your passage above: allow me to point out that not having a plan on how to execute a goal does not imply that the goal does not exist. The passage notes that the Nazis hadn’t figured out the optimal way to achieve that goal of killing them. The second and third sentences prove this - and my - assertion. You’re misinterpreting the passage, but I’ve never asked you about ‘temporary plans’ anyway.

Cooper, on the other hand, implies that the Nazis eventually decided to kill the Jews by (insert your choice of method) because they couldn’t take care of them all after having rounded up the Jews that they didn’t manage to kill in the ghettos. It was a humane response to kill them sooner rather than later after only killing most of them initially, in other words, according to him. Read the transcript.

Do you believe Cooper’s assertion, and do you believe that if the Nazis were rolling in unlimited supplies of matzo and gefilte fish that they would have just kept their Jewish prisoners happily alive and well fed?

This is a super simple couple of questions, and your refusal to answer them is a bit … odd.

Lol, I answer your questions and then you change them....and say I didn't answer them.

This is what Cooper said....

"when they went into the east in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners and so forth, that they were going to have to handle; they went in with no plan for that...and, they just threw these people into camps and millions of people ended up dead there. You have letters, as early as July August 1941 from commandants of these makeshift camps they are setting up for these millions of people who were surrendering, or people they were rounding up, so two months after, or a month or two after operation Barbarossa was launched, and they are writing back to the high command in Berlin saying, "we can't feed these people, we don't have the food to feed these people," one of them actually says..." Rather to wait for them to slowly wait for these people to starve this winter, wouldn't it be more humane for us to finish them off quickly now..."

What part of what he wrote is not true?

Did you watch the podcast at all, and if you did when? Did you watch it before you reference it?