My mother was a young child in Germany during WW2. I imagine she had no firsthand sophisticated understanding of politics at the time and was essentially repeating opinions of adults she knew.
But she was also remarking on one of the programs that provided servants to families. I don't recall the details. She could remember her family benefiting in some way from such a program.
Regardless of all those details, Germany was in dire straits and this was due in part to a global depression and in part due to how other nations were treating Germany post WW1. It was the people of Germany suffering because of all that and they likely did not have all the details we now know about Nazi tactics.
This was well before our highly connected modern communications. They used to play news at movie theaters during WW2. TVs were not yet widespread.
My mother's remark is firsthand testimony concerning the perceptions of ordinary people on the ground at the time. That isn't apologist. It doesn't mean any of the ugly political things people are reading into it.
It is interesting to me for that reason. It is rare insight into how and why Hitler could rise to power to begin with. At least some of the people at the time perceived him as doing good things for a country being crushed by outside forces.
Hindsight is 20/20. People pretty routinely are shocked to find where their path has led them. I don't see any reason to question the idea that the ordinary people of Germany could believe he was doing good for the country until things went very wrong and then suddenly feeling like "He's lost his mind and we didn't sign up for this!"
They weren't on Twitter watching political inquiries go down in real time. Things were different back then.
“As a small child, it seemed like Hitler did good things for Germany until he went nuts” would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say. They way you put it makes it sound like she never looked at what happened later and came to an adult understanding of the situation.
Yeah, let's not put my mother on trial here. She's not participating in this discussion. She's not here to defend herself from such nastiness.
I was a minor when the discussion occurred. That no doubt influenced the wording.
It was a private conversation at home between mother and daughter. She had zero reason to think she needed to defend the remark as if it were a PhD thesis or testimony in a war crimes trial.
You posted it to a public forum at least twice. Here, you’re using it as a jumping off point to argue that the perception of Nazis as evil from the start is a “retcon.”
If you don’t want to discuss it, don’t post it. If you don’t want to defend it, don’t base an argument on it.
It’s a mischaracterization of your point? You said:
> A lot of people simply cannot look objectively at anything related to WW2. They know how it ultimately turned out, so they basically ret-con it as "they were pure evil from the start."
I don’t know how else to read that other than as an argument that Nazis weren’t pure evil from the start.
Then let me suggest you just walk away from this one. Your tactics are ugly. Your understanding of my point is lacking. This isn't likely to go good places.
I plan to drop it. It's been surprisingly well received so far, by which I mean it didn't turn into a shit show. I see no reason to go there at this late stage in the discussion.
How am I supposed to read it? A retcon is going back and changing the original story. Applied to real history, it means the retcon isn’t true. If Nazis being pure evil from the start is a retcon, then that means Nazis weren’t pure evil from the start. Not so?
I don’t want to walk away from pointing out that Nazis were, in fact, as bad as everyone thinks and were that way from the start. The fact that it’s been well received just adds further motivation to point this out.
But she was also remarking on one of the programs that provided servants to families. I don't recall the details. She could remember her family benefiting in some way from such a program.
Regardless of all those details, Germany was in dire straits and this was due in part to a global depression and in part due to how other nations were treating Germany post WW1. It was the people of Germany suffering because of all that and they likely did not have all the details we now know about Nazi tactics.
This was well before our highly connected modern communications. They used to play news at movie theaters during WW2. TVs were not yet widespread.
My mother's remark is firsthand testimony concerning the perceptions of ordinary people on the ground at the time. That isn't apologist. It doesn't mean any of the ugly political things people are reading into it.
It is interesting to me for that reason. It is rare insight into how and why Hitler could rise to power to begin with. At least some of the people at the time perceived him as doing good things for a country being crushed by outside forces.
Hindsight is 20/20. People pretty routinely are shocked to find where their path has led them. I don't see any reason to question the idea that the ordinary people of Germany could believe he was doing good for the country until things went very wrong and then suddenly feeling like "He's lost his mind and we didn't sign up for this!"
They weren't on Twitter watching political inquiries go down in real time. Things were different back then.