I think Peter is exactly as you portrayed him; a kind and gentle altruistic man. I didn’t mean to question or doubt the reality in which you knew him (sorry if I came across like that). — And I would never judge Peter’s goodness or lack thereof for whatever atrocities he may or may not have committed in Germany as a teenager. Teenagers are still vulnerable children — victims of their surroundings. I give Peter credit for surviving in the nightmare exploding around him. (I would have committed suicide — seriously.)

But I don’t think I can really ever forgive the adults who allowed such evil intolerance to hold sway — just as I blame myself for the blood that we spill in Iraq. I guess that’s why the last sentence in your otherwise remarkable memoir with Peter left me a little dismayed. — As I understood it Peter was a teenager who was either interned or conscripted and forced to fight in Hitler’s youth camps. That’s a far cry from a man, consciously choosing to fight on behalf of Hitler’s unmitigated evil.

I’m sorry if I sound so critical because you’ve written such a beautiful story. I guess I just can’t bare the thought of giving Hitler credit for anything good that might have come from fighting on his side. — For all the victims caught up in the madness, I agree they deserve another chance. But not Hitler, never Hitler. Although, I do understand that was not your intention and I thank you for your kind response.

Thank you lespool. And I certainly agree about Hitler.

I don’t think, in fact I know, that Peter didn’t use his age to hide from responsibility. He knew what he was doing and he knew it was wrong but he chose to survive (and incidentally, his actions reflected on his family, who would also have been held responsible for what he did. Peter could have refused to fight, but there would have been severe consequences. His father being a VP in Siemens was a lot of protection for him and his family, but it wasn’t total.)

lespool @ 318

Thank you for sharing this inspirational story. But I suspect that Peter would feel far more comfortable if you deleted the last sentence, for the sake of those who suffered unimaginable pain under Hitler.

“That man, who fought for Hitler, might have been the best man I’ve ever met.”

It strikes at certain questions about complicity and redemption, which is why I’m afraid, though I understand where you’re coming from, I shan’t delete it. It actually caps the post and without it the post wouldn’t quite wrap properly.

Certainly, of course, you’re right that Peter would never have said, or even thought, that he was a particularly good man. But then, such people rarely do. And maybe you can’t be a good man, or one of the best men, if you ever fought for a country, for a leader, who did horrible things.

The reason I put up this post, actually, was as a footnote to the conversation with Maryam.

The question of complicity should strike very close to home, and most especially given how Americans always say they support the troops.

As for Peter – perhaps he was a very bad man, because of what he did in his youth. When I have told this story in the past I have often had people tell me he was scum, because he fought for Hitler and nothing could ever erase that.

Which leads to the questions of change, redemption and forgiveness. But I’ll leave those for another time, except to say that I believe in second chances and third acts.

I think Peter is exactly as you portrayed him; a kind and gentle altruistic man. I didn’t mean to question or doubt the reality in which you knew him (sorry if I came across like that). — And I would never judge Peter’s goodness or lack thereof for whatever atrocities he may or may not have committed in Germany as a teenager. Teenagers are still vulnerable children — victims of their surroundings. I give Peter credit for surviving in the nightmare exploding around him. (I would have committed suicide — seriously.)

But I don’t think I can really ever forgive the adults who allowed such evil intolerance to hold sway — just as I blame myself for the blood that we spill in Iraq. I guess that’s why the last sentence in your otherwise remarkable memoir with Peter left me a little dismayed. — As I understood it Peter was a teenager who was either interned or conscripted and forced to fight in Hitler’s youth camps. That’s a far cry from a man, consciously choosing to fight on behalf of Hitler’s unmitigated evil.

I’m sorry if I sound so critical because you’ve written such a beautiful story. I guess I just can’t bare the thought of giving Hitler credit for anything good that might have come from fighting on his side. — For all the victims caught up in the madness, I agree they deserve another chance. But not Hitler, never Hitler. Although, I do understand that was not your intention and I thank you for your kind response.

eCAHNomics @ 119

The left of left-factions of the Soc*al*st Party in Austria actually sat-out the election in 1936 refusing to support the Socialist Party candidates on the ballot. ~~~ModNote: Edited for content to clear filters.~~~

Filters are funny! Strange it caught the first, but not the second mention of C*al*s ;-)

GSD @ 198

But by and large a government can be brought to its knees by its citizenry if they are committed to change it.

So why is Mugabe still in charge of Zinbabwe? I guess the citizens just aren’t committed enough. Ditto Iraqis under SH. As I said, dictorship is one of the more stable forms of govt.

Because no one wants to die. And Mugabe and Saddam would kill their internal opponents.
Once the Rubicon is crossed where the leader will eliminate those who are outspoken against his regime…people crawl away and ignore when their neighbor is hauled off in the dark of the night.

And it happens to the most normal people. In two experiments performed in the 1960’s before one had to inform subjects of what the experiment was about before they consented two seminal investigations were done that show just how malleable people are to doing things that they “would never do.”

The Milgram Experiment

“In Milgram’s first set of experiments, 65% (26 out of 40)[1] of experimental participants administered the experiment’s final 450-volt shock, though many were quite uncomfortable in doing so; everyone paused at some point and questioned the experiment, some even saying they would return the cheque for the money they were paid. No participant steadfastly refused to give further shocks before the 300-volt level.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

The Zimbardo Experiment

And sometimes we are not just Good Germans, but good gaurds, and compliant prisoners, too. [BTW this explains the behavior of Moussouai and Jose Padilla].

http://www.prisonexp.org/

The German people didn’t go along with Hitler any more than we’re going along with W. Hitler’s highest votewas less than 40%. And the German people had way more provocation to go along with a demagogue. Defeat in a devasting war (which the generals kept saying they were winning, where have we heard that), reparations, hyperinflation, all of which was preceeded by (always destabilizing) rapid social & economic change in the late 1800s. Hitler restored the nation to international standing after all that (1936 Olympics). Heck, 99% of the chickenshit Americans would have followed W if he’d performed such a miracle. Once he’d seized total power, there was little the people could do. Dictatorships are often the most stable form of government.

While Hitler’s party never received more than 40% of the vote in any election…the German people also voted for other nationalist parties (e.g. Bismark’s) that eventually formed a coalition with the Nazi’s to easily win a majority over the more liberal parties of the Weimer government.

Pre-WW2 Germany was a Parliamentary state…and in such states the jostling of political affinities and ministries is worked out after the elections. In the US it’s done beforehand. The religious right in ante-bellum Germany had their own party, so did the industrialist/
business/capitalists, and so did the anti-immigrants.

The amazing thing is how much power Bush has consolidated IN SPITE OF his relative lack of electoral support…and the clear absence of support in polls.

That’s one reason that Bush’s effort to spy on us will ultimately fail. The more people talking about impeachment or political action the fewer they can haul off…and if they do this there will be proof to the bulk of the population that there is a real and imminent DANGER!

But like Germany, the bulk of opposition has been apathetic and inactive. Those that were “active” were fighting between each other more iontently than looking at the real danger. The left of left-factions of the Soc*al*st Party in Austria actually sat-out the election in 1936 refusing to support the Socialist Party candidates on the ballot. Didn’t we learn ANYTHING from the fiasco in 2000? Is our collective memory so shallow?

We need to start pushing back…and that means embarassing REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS who continue to suppoort Bush. People need to go to these Congressman’s offices for meetings and simply not leave until their “petitions” are heard. I recall that Rep. Matsui’s office had a sit-in for weeks to swing her vote (and I really understand this was because there was a Green Party candidate who wanted to run for her seat).

But I see almost no action against the Pugs like Issa, Drier, or Lungren. These guys just voted to suspend your Constitutional rights to privacy for a half year!

Did Hillary? Did Obama? Did Pelosi?

Yet a lot of people on FDL seem to equate them with Romney or Giuliani? I simply don’t get it? I can understand the idea that one Democratic candidate is better than another…but commentators that actually equate Clinton to Giuliani or Thompson? That’s daft as Nader saying there was “absolutely no difference between Republicans and Democrats”. History proved Nader mad as a hatter. And his 2004 run showed that he was more about ego than anything else.

Again, infighting is exactly what will bring Guiliani or Fred Thompson into power. And then, instead of some FISA bill that suspends your freedom for 6 months you’ll have the 4th Amendment consigned to history.

We have 6 months to reverse this vote and swing those Blue Dogs over to support the Constitution. To get a bill through (despite Bush’s veto threats) to limit funding in the Iraq War to withdrawal by a certain date.

I’m not worried about the bulk of the Democratic Party. But we need to make it very hot for those Blue Dogs and Republicans.

Remember this vote on FISA passed the Senate by the barest of margins…it’ll take just ONE switched vote to block such a renewal bill from reaching the floor next time. ONE VOTE! If we can’t burn someones behind to do this then the netroots might as well fold the tent and crawl away.

~~~ModNote: Edited for content to clear filters.~~~

Thank you for sharing this inspirational story. But I suspect that Peter would feel far more comfortable if you deleted the last sentence, for the sake of those who suffered unimaginable pain under Hitler.

“That man, who fought for Hitler, might have been the best man I’ve ever met.”

It strikes at certain questions about complicity and redemption, which is why I’m afraid, though I understand where you’re coming from, I shan’t delete it. It actually caps the post and without it the post wouldn’t quite wrap properly.

Certainly, of course, you’re right that Peter would never have said, or even thought, that he was a particularly good man. But then, such people rarely do. And maybe you can’t be a good man, or one of the best men, if you ever fought for a country, for a leader, who did horrible things.

The reason I put up this post, actually, was as a footnote to the conversation with Maryam.

The question of complicity should strike very close to home, and most especially given how Americans always say they support the troops.

As for Peter – perhaps he was a very bad man, because of what he did in his youth. When I have told this story in the past I have often had people tell me he was scum, because he fought for Hitler and nothing could ever erase that.

Which leads to the questions of change, redemption and forgiveness. But I’ll leave those for another time, except to say that I believe in second chances and third acts.

“That man, who fought for Hitler, might have been the best man I’ve ever met.”

So, Ian, what has taken place since you saw Peter? I’m interested.

Peter was old fairly young, and pretty sickly when I met him, unfortunately. He was an amazing handyman (could wire a house, lay bricks, do stonework, do plumbing, carpentry and so on) but he was very weak by that time and he’d show me, or tell me what to do and supervise the trickier stuff (plumbing mostly carefully).

So, alas, he’s no longer around. I wanted him to write a book about his life (he had an amazing life with many adventures), but it never happened.

My quote about “the German people going along” of course excludes the German people who left, the German people who fought against the Nazis and those that had a change of heart too.

But by and large a government can be brought to its knees by its citizenry if they are committed to change it.

So there were large numbers of Germans who were openly complicit or were passively complicit because things weren’t affecting them directly. Until things began to affect them directly and by then as Goerring said: The jig is up.

-GSD

Yup.

And yet. If you resisted too hard you were likely to wind up hung or with a bullet in you.

At what point would you say “no. No I won’t?”

I ain’t saying it because I’m sure that if my country fell to fascism, and did horrible things and I were, say, drafted, I would have the courage to say “no”. I hope I would. But…

Most people don’t. Even the ones who know better.

When do you become complicit?

Peter knew he was complicit, even as a teenager.

eCAHNomics @ 83

raven @ 72
I don’t understand what you’re questioning.

Well, the notion that we “caused” the destruction of Germany, as you point out when you say “That is of course what anyone here would say”. So the Germans say it, almost anyone here would say it but, what, we shouldn’t have done it? Sorry, I disagree.

The mass civilian casualty bombing was studied after the war and the conclusion was that it didn’t appreciably hasten the end of the war or weaken the German war effort. It was bombing designed to do mass civilian casualties, in many cases (Dresden definitely) and was as destructive or more than being hit by a nuke (without the radiation/psych impact of it being done by one bomb.)

(Put it this way – the Blitz didn’t break Britain, and Allied Bomber command didn’t break Germany. Troops on the ground did. Japan is a different discussion.)

Peter’s comment, btw, was that he didn’t think it helped the Allies much.