Who Is IOZ?: Hitler!, I Coulda Killed Her!

Friday, August 14, 2009

Hitler!, I Coulda Killed Her!

Michael Gerson isn't really worth mentioning, but as he notes a famous debate exchange between Buckley and Vidal, it is worth noting that he omits Buckley's first response to Gore calling him a cryptonazi, which was to sneer, "Now listen, you queer."

Also, Gerson rehashes the usual Spielbergian sepiaization of the Holocaust as a sort of touchstone memorial. Here is an interesting, important, and timely counterpoint that has the added benefit of being written in a language appropriate for human beings who are able to walk upright, feed themselves, and put on their big-boy pants.

46 comments:

Keifus said...: What is crucial is that the ideology that legitimated mass death was also a vision of economic develop-ment. In a world of scarcity, particularly of food supplies, both regimes integrated mass murder with economic planning.

Sobering.; 12:01 PM
Dennis Perrin said...: How 'bout spreading the crypto around? The Nazis weren't history's only mass killers. Why not crypto-Hutu? Or even better -- crypto-American?

This could work on a personal level as well.

"Oh spare me, you crypto-Gacy!"

"I've heard enough, crypto-Kissinger!"

The variations are endless.; 12:09 PM
Bruce said...: If you're looking for a film about War made for grown-ups, check out "Come and See".; 12:46 PM
Cüneyt said...: Crypto-Muslim has long been a favorite in certain parts. Hell, the Spanish made a lot of hay with it, and talk about timely--I hear the American president is one!

(In all seriousness, thanks for posting the second link, IOZ. That kind of correction of the historical record needs to be made. For something that we're never supposed to forget, and which has been so widely discussed, the atrocities of the Second World War are shrouded in a lot of confusion and outright deception. Sad stuff, hard to read, but good history.); 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: You brought her, you Hitler!; 3:26 PM
CMike said...: Gore Vidal has fessed up since that he meant to call Bill Buckley, Jr. a "crypto-fascist" in that instance, not a "crypto-Nazi." Vidal concedes that had he used the term he intended, Buckley would not have gone off.; 4:47 PM
drip said...: Buckley would not have gone off. Shit, it took another 30 years before he went off as it was. He might still be here if Vidal called him a crypto-fascist. I'm glad he misspoke.

And get back to work Perrin.; 5:04 PM
two to the fighting eighth power said...: Another one of these "Oh the Nazis were bad, but the Soviet Union was bad also - look how much they have in common! Never again shall we try to exterminate all non-Aryans - or overthrow capitalism!" propaganda pieces ...

From the article: "Thus when one considers the total number of European civilians killed by totalitarian powers in the middle of the twentieth century, one should have in mind three groups of roughly equal size: Jews killed by Germans, non-Jews killed by Germans, and Soviet citizens killed by the Soviet state."

This is just wrong. No matter what way you count, it does not add up. Germans (and Austrians, and their collaborators) killed far more people than the Soviets, even if you arbitrarily restrict the count to civilians (so as to leave out the 10 million Soviet soldiers killed during the war) and non-Jews.; 5:07 PM
lucid said...: Timothy Snyder needs to look into what is going on in the Middle East and Africa... His next article should be on how the World Bank and WTO took over mass killing agenda and exported it out of Europe... Hitler and Stalin ain't got nothing on Bob MacNamara.; 5:10 PM
the_system said...: From the article: "Thus when one considers the total number of European civilians killed by totalitarian powers in the middle of the twentieth century, one should have in mind three groups of roughly equal size: Jews killed by Germans, non-Jews killed by Germans, and Soviet citizens killed by the Soviet state."

This is just wrong. No matter what way you count, it does not add up. Germans (and Austrians, and their collaborators) killed far more people than the Soviets, even if you arbitrarily restrict the count to civilians (so as to leave out the 10 million Soviet soldiers killed during the war) and non-Jews.

Ahem. Three groups. Equal size. Two of the groups killed by Germans. One of the groups killed by Soviets.

Final Score:

European civilian deaths due to Germans: 66%

European civilian deaths due to Soviets: 33%

Reading Comprehension: Lacking.; 8:52 PM
Christopher said...: Gerson's article is part of a tremendously annoying trend in the whole health care watchamacallit, which is that the news media would rather discuss tactics then arguments.

The media is filled with people asking whether it's okay to shout somebody down at a town hall meeting or compare a President to Hitler.

You know, I think the actual arguments are more important then the methods of arguing.

How bout we talk about those arguments, maybe, instead of rehashing 8th grade civics class? Maybe?; 1:42 AM
Ashley said...: I'd rather be called a queer than a cryptonazi. Just saying.

Though I've been called a cryptofascist and a faggot plenty. I've noticed that "queer" isn't actually used much by those who are keen on making a point.

Never been called a cryptofascist faggot, however. I'm not moving in quite the right Venn apparently.; 2:20 AM
Cüneyt said...: I think Pim Fortuyn might have fit that bill, according to some.

As far as the article, I thought it was clear about Nazi atrocities. I know that the masturbatory debate over who was worse between the Nazis and the Soviets is tiring and misses the point, but the article didn't do that. It did, however, touch upon widespread myths in what we used to call the First and Second Worlds. We tell the story of assimilated Jewry exterminated because of something over which they had no choice. We ignore the adamantly, culturally distinct eastern European Jews to whom everyone felt alien--even the Western Jews, which explains a few things in Israel. Meanwhile, those succinct few paragraphs on the Russian or Ukrainian national myths regarding the period were excellent, plain and simple. You can even extrapolate that to several remarks I've heard, from Russian conservatives to American professors, that Soviet absolutely wasn't Russian, was anti-Russian in fact. Just like the Germans who insist that they suffered too, under Hitler. True, but in no way a fair comparison to the suffering of non-majority populations.

This kind of stuff we need more of. I'm sorry, two to the, but this wasn't more of the "Black Book of Communism" style dreck. It puts some things in perspective, which is refreshing in a world where the stories we get usually either cleave to this national narrative or another.; 8:51 AM
two to the fighting eighth power said...: the_system: Snyder's claim is that Operation Barbarossa is equal to the Holocaust, and both of them separately are equal to the crimes of Stalinism - in other words: that the Holocaust may still be the single worst thing in modern history, but apart from that, the Nazis were exactly as bad as the Soviets; to make this argument, he takes the amount Jewish victims of the Nazis and defines "other victims of the Nazis" and "victims of the Soviet state" in a way so that they match this number.

What I wanted to point out is that this exercise is not only complete nonsense on its face, but it also does not add up, because Nazi Germany declared a War of Extermination (Vernichtungskrieg) on the Soviet Union, and in the end the Nazis managed to kill about 27 million Soviet citizens.

Therefore, if you want to measure evil by the numbers, you can only arrive at the above-mentioned equality by arbitrarily restricting your definitions. And this is what Snyder does.; 10:35 AM
Cüneyt said...: I'd need direct quotes to believe your interpretation. I saw Snyder as arguing that the Auschwitz-style extermination was only part of the atrocities committed against the Jews and other targets of Nazi aggression; the Eastern Front must be seen in its proper context, as part of the same policy of extermination. Comparing, if not equating, the death camp with the Einsatzgruppen is not intrinsically unfair.; 11:26 AM
SteveB said...: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused town-hall protesters of "carrying swastikas," leaving the impression they were proud Nazis -- when, in fact, a few protesters carried signs accusing Barack Obama of having Nazi aims (bad enough).

Who, aside from Michael Gerson, got the "impression" that Pelosi was saying that the protesters were themselves Nazis?; 11:34 AM
two to the fighting eighth power said...: Cüneyt: Take Synder's clarification of his position in the exchange of letters that is linked at the bottom of the article:

"I argued that our understanding of European mass killing should be modified: that Auschwitz was less important to the Holocaust than Operation Reinhardt in occupied Poland and the death pits in the occupied USSR; that the Germans planned to kill more non-Jews than Jews and in the end killed the two in about equal numbers; and that German and Soviet killing policies overlapped in territory and should be considered together as part of a larger phenomenon."

Again, the first assertion, that the Nazis killed about as many non-Jews as they killed Jews, is false. In the Soviet Union alone they killed 27 million people (of whom about 2 million were Jews).

And then he writes that the "killing policies" of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union not only covered about the same region and time, but "should be considered together as part of a larger phenomenon".

Given that Snyder separates the Jewish victims of the Nazis from the non-Jewish victims of the Nazis, this implies that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in the end had the same policy with respect to killing non-Jews. And given that Snyder also asserts that the Nazis killed as many non-Jewish Soviet citizens as the Sovet Union killed Soviet citizens, he implies that - factoring out the Holocaust - Nazi Germany was as bad the Soviet Union.; 12:07 PM
Cüneyt said...: I didn't see that; let me look at that more closely. Thank you.; 12:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Two to the eighth--

I was about to say he was only counting civilians, but even then, he still seems to be missing millions killed by the Nazis, so I'm not sure what's going on there. In his followup piece he claims that when you see a range of death toll estimates, further investigation usually shows that the lowest one is the most accurate. I'm not sure about that, but maybe in his field of study it's been true.

Speaking of which, by normal US practice his piece actually borders on commie-love, using the standard that if you don't cite the biggest numbers given for Stalin's death toll you must be a Stalinist. Outside the world of scholarship, everyone seems to agree that Stalin's bodycount is 20 million, rock-bottom, and is more likely to be 30, 40, or 60 million. Rummel uses numbers like that. Someone at another blog said it was 80 million and was morally outraged when I said some people think the total (famine deaths, gulags, Great Terror, everything) might be in the 10-15 million range (and even that might be high if Snyder is right).

Donald; 5:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey, say what you will about Hitler. At least he was honest about his intentions.; 5:16 AM
Cüneyt said...: Tell that to Ernst Rohm, Stalin, Chamberlain... I'm going to assume you were making a joke; this myth of the honest racist is one I've heard before, but it's not really true at all.; 10:36 AM
Inkberrow said...: Glad you mentioned Rohm, Cuneyt. It's the inconvenient truths, when acknowledged, which confer at least some credibility on these sorts of interlocking moral melodramas. Yes, we're provided the newest "Cheer/Applaud" and "Boo/Hiss" cards from the current proprietors, plus IOZ's pamphlets near the alley across from the theater, but let's recall Shirer's report that Hitler's kingmaker, Rohm, was a vicious leather-butch homosexual, who recruited---and victimized---based on some malevolent normative structure driven explicitly by his sexual preference. I just love victimology!; 6:10 PM
Cüneyt said...: It is worthy of note, yes, that there have long been reactionaries and tyrants who behaved in ways we would now term homosexual, from Alexander and Augustus to Richard the Lionheart and the samurai warrior caste. We may likewise see in tyrants of every sexual configuration a sexualization of their political activities, or a politicization of their sexual proclivities. Either one educates the other or each comes from another, unseen source: I am not sure.

As far as what relevance this has to homosexuality in itself, I will have to ask that you enlighten me. Hitler was asexual. Goebbels was a family man. I see no incompatibility between any lifestyle or fuck habit and any other political position. How many queers worked for Reagan?; 8:10 PM
Rumpleforeskin said...: And most modern Republican males are closet cases who apparently hate themselves and anyone who doesn't live their quiet, desperate lives of self-loathing...yet, we bleeding hearts still insist on fighting for their right to enjoy the same liberties and opportunities as the rest of us. What exactly is your incoherent point, Inky, you stupid stone-brained sonofawhore?; 8:00 AM
The Promiscuous Reader said...: I think that the number of heterosexuals who supported Hitler was vastly greater than the number of homosexuals who supported Hitler. What does that tell us about heterosexuals?; 9:40 AM
Cüneyt said...: Coincidentally enough, most people are also two drinks away from a putsch.; 11:48 AM
IOZ said...: I don't know, Cüneyt, I'm an ass man myself.; 11:52 AM
Inkberrow said...: Rumpleforeskin---

Love the nic. You need to take Victimology 101, however. American skoolkiddies are taught that malevolent, even pathological tendencies inhere in certain socio-political demographic subsets, say White Males, for instance, explicitly at the cost of certain other subsets, say blacks or gays. Almost exclusively, homosexuals wear victim's linens in this pedagogy, practically to the point of idealization, presumably to make up for as well as to inhibit anti-homosexual attitudes and conduct. Rohm epitomizes the aforementioned "inconvenient truths" where homosexuals are concerned, as do the African kings who brought their brothers and sisters to the slave-trading ships in chains.

Any questions?; 12:28 PM
Inkberrow said...: Promiscuous Reader---

"Promiscuous" reading is all well and good, but you're not forming any sort of meaningful commitment to the material, for instance where basic comprehension is concerned. As I noted from Shirer, Rohm explicitly, purposefully made his in-your-face homosexuality part of his modus operandum and raison d'etre.....as a fascist thug-captain. Recruiting, victimizing was frequently a function of his homosexuality qua homosexuality. Rohm relished physically and mentally breaking down macho heteros and especially effeminates of either persuasion; his officer cadre had to be made up of similarly vicious leather gays.

Hitler's hetero supporters were not (explicitly) with him as a function or extension of their sexualities or sexual "worldviews", if you will. Where violence and victimization under such sexuality-driven auspices HAS occurred, say with poor Mathew Shepard, gay activist groups squeal like stuck victims, and quickly assign dread Tendencies and groupthink Ignorance to the disfavored demographic for public edification. I know, some victims are more equal than others....; 12:44 PM
IOZ said...: Fantastich.; 1:02 PM
Cüneyt said...: Hebrews also kept slaves and practiced mass slaughter when they could manage it. Why do they whine about Auschwitz, then? Right, Inky?; 1:04 PM
Cüneyt said...: Oh, and I like the way that you say that heteronormativity had nothing to do with Hitler's supporters, even as they called for or condoned the execution of homosexuals (look it up), but assert simultaneously that homosexuality had everything to do with Rohm's activities, rather than just being part of the usual assortment of characteristics one finds in a person.

In any case, Inkberrow, you forget the end of the story. In the end, homosexuality was used as a weapon against Rohm. He was simultaneously villain and victim. This is of no great surprise to me, but I'm sure you'll crow that it supports your tortured thesis.

Also: Baron von Steuben. Thanks, homosexuality, for building our military as well!; 1:19 PM
Rumpleforeskin said...: I understood that part, Inky, I was hoping you had an actual point underneath it. I mean, really? The fact that some blacks gladly participated in enslaving their brothers in melanin proves that there was no massive, centuries-long trans-Atlantic trafficking in human flesh rooted in theories of racial superiority, or at least that it was as spontaneous and blameless as a hurricane? And the existence of someone like Rohm proves that gays aren't really discriminated against in ways and on a scale that heteros aren't?

Oh, wait, I see -- we're back to your usual "They woulda done it to us if we hadn't done it to them first, so I ain't apologizing for shit!" stance. I imagine if you could work out a way to call for bombing gays and blacks, you'd throw that in, and we'd have The Viking Portable Library's Guide to Inkberrow's Philosophy in one concise comment thread.

(Also, I never even heard about evolution in science class thanks to the victimized whining of your ideological compatriots, let alone heard any lectures about how The Evil Whitey Does Lives On and On, so maybe you should first take the buckets off your head and feet and stop flailing around wildly at arguments that no one has made.); 1:40 PM
Inkberrow said...: Cuneyt:

No, I didn't forget the end of the story, nor am I unduly (in my opinion anyway) reifying Rohm's homosexuality among the strands of traits and motivations that constituted his personhood. In Rohm's case the gay strand was manifestly NOT fungible with the others. His demons drove him, his sexuality-driven anger and self-validating coping-mechanisms, rather like J. Edgar Hoover except on the other side of the same coin.

With certain figures you can't have it both ways, Cuneyt---Homosexuality as Happenstance, and presumptuous or bigoted to posit otherwise, or Badge of Identity and Noble Struggle, as the particular identity-politics ethic or victimhood actuarial table dictate. How long will polite conversation need to conceive of homosexuals as baby harp seals, or unicorns? How about (Good) Fairies?; 2:32 PM
Inkberrow said...: Rumple---

Your perfervid, abusive reaction here alone establishes my point about the prevalence of contemporary cultural conditioning to idealize homosexuals and other approved victim-constituencies, while caricaturizing and vilifying disfavored villain-groups. For my part, I say everything in moderation---everything. You read like a fifties square deploring seditious, dangerous, or unpatriotic content, always favoring Flag and Country to inconvenient truths. Imagine that---I'm a poor-man's wannabe Allen Ginsberg! Talk about full circle.....; 2:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Just because they were over 18, of male sex, given a rifle, and told to march "in that direction", should not disqualify the conscripts dead in WWII from victim status.

The Christians.; 2:57 PM
Rumpleforeskin said...: AS I ALREADY SAID, you dumb fuck, we are perfectly aware that homosexuals are not angels, as evidenced by the fact that a bunch of them are Republicans who devote their lives to oppressing people who don't share their self-loathing and cowardice. No one except the voices in your head is pretending otherwise. My "abusive reaction" stems from the fact that you are either too stupid or intellectually dishonest to recognize that fact.; 3:06 PM
Fellow Traveller said...: I think that the number of heterosexuals who supported Hitler was vastly greater than the number of homosexuals who supported Hitler. What does that tell us about heterosexuals?

They like a man in uniform.; 3:45 PM
IOZ said...: So far, we have looks to me like a series of victimless crimes.; 6:16 PM
Inkberrow said...: Rumple---

I will be gentle because of your lovable handle (so to speak). I myself was subjected to genital mutilation because of the cultural influence of an old Semitic mystery religion still triumphs over that American pediatricians.

But get serious. Look at the whole thread. Was "Homosexuals Are Not Angels" ever proposed, pro or con? Was it the null hypothesis or something? No. You simply reacted like a Dominican when someone criticizes A-Rod's character. Meanwhile, I have no idea whether you're a baseball player or not. If so, a catcher, in all likelihood.....; 6:36 PM
Anonymous said...: Was "Homosexuals Are Not Angels" ever proposed, pro or con?

Well, this schmuck seems to say something to that effect...

my point about the prevalence of contemporary cultural conditioning to idealize homosexuals; 7:00 PM
Rumpleforeskin said...: Inky, what the fuck have you been doing in this thread if not railing against the imaginary conspiracy to indoctrinate us all with propaganda about the 100% pure, enlightened loving-kindness of blacks and gays? And when it's pointed out to you that in reality, no one believes any such thing, you react by making a lame gay-baiting joke?

Are you Erin4iraq's husband or something?; 7:09 PM
Inkberrow said...: Anon @ 7:00 and Rumple---

Sanctimony and invective I can deal with, but there's little room for worthwhile maneuver absent basic reading comprehension and a box with more than black and white crayons in it. Rest assured (seek reassurance) that your instincts are sound, anyway.; 7:52 PM
Cüneyt said...: So we did not ratify and confirm a statement, so Inkberrow judges us to hold the opposite statement.

False dichotomies and conservatives. Match made in Heaven. I'll leave you to it.; 8:26 PM
Inkberrow said...: Cuneyt---

Our host is privileged to write essays and mini-essays. It's Good that our host does so. For the rest it's snappy patter, often in broad brushstrokes, and (gasp!) even facetiousness and hyperbole. I'll grant "unproven dichotomies", here anyway. But not "implausible" or "not colorable", thus far. "False" and "not false" are functionally equivalent in this connection. Meanwhile, I'll hazard a guess that there is but a small market here for extended material from me. I could be wrong....; 10:28 AM
Cüneyt said...: I don't know, Inkberrow. Try writing something new. After a while, you start repeating yourself or launch into tangles of phrasing when you might try to write it cleanly. That's what I try for, anyway.

As far as your dichotomy, I say it's false. If you want to challenge that, do it instead of dicking around. Individuals of a given group can be villainous while that same group is victimized by society and the state. Homosexuals were persecuted and killed by Hitler. Rohm was a homosexual who worked for Hitler. Nobody has a problem reconciling those two, aside from you. You might have had a conversation about it, but you sacrificed it to make cheap digs at straw men. You can do that on your own. Most of us are ready to leave you to it.; 4:08 PM

Friday, August 14, 2009

Hitler!, I Coulda Killed Her!

46 comments:

Axis Mundi

About Me

Hypocrites Lecteurs, Semblables, et Frères

Archive