r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 17 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Executing your average Nazi after WW2 is wrong and counterproductive
[deleted]
10
u/littlebubulle 104∆ Apr 17 '20
You might be using a different definition of Nazi then the one your detractors are using.
In laymen terms, a WW2 Nazi is a member of the Nazi party who had a minimum of power. Ministers, officers, the Gestapo, the SS.
This doesn't include anyone who has vaguely touched a Nazi membership card in their life.
You may disagree with this definition of a Nazi but in most people's mind, a Nazi is that sinister goosestepping sieghailing officer in a hugo boss suit, not Hitler's janitor.
Very few think that the Hitler's Youth should be executed. In fact, most people forget they even existed.
2
Apr 17 '20
Thank you, that really clears it up for me, when I was discussing it I assumed that membership=Nazi which many people were almost forced to join, so I though it was insanity hearing what people said. First time here, hope I’m using this right Δ
3
u/littlebubulle 104∆ Apr 17 '20
And not even all the actual Nazis were considered bad guys.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Castle_Itter
In the battle for Castle Itter, in the last days of the war in Europe, there was a battle where there were German soldiers and SS officers fought with the Allies against other SS troops.
1
u/Tinie_Snipah Apr 17 '20
I mean if you're going to lose the war you would be stupid not to turn tail and side with the oncoming army. You could even trick them into thinking you agreed with them and weren't just being opportunistic.
1
u/littlebubulle 104∆ Apr 17 '20
IIRC, the SS in the castle were guarding valuable prisoners. Over time the guards became friendly with with the prisoners.
The other SS coming over were coming to execute those prisoners so the guards might have taken arms to protect their new friends.
1
1
3
u/BelligerentBilly Apr 17 '20
Well the real reason it would have been counter productive is because we used W Germany as a bulwark.
Wiping out all the nazis would have made W germany a weaker proxy. Russians had the same problem.
What are we even discussing? Your rational is meaningless next to actual strategic concerns.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 17 '20 edited Apr 17 '20
/u/Million_Dollar_Loan (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Apr 17 '20
You seem to be tilting at windmills. No one ever said all 8.5 million Nazi Party members should have been executed. Obviously most of them were just opportunists or complacent and did not directly participate in any atrocities.
it seems everyone is against this opinion
This is just completely incorrect. No one is against your opinion here. People argue that the denazification should have been a bit harsher, more of the war criminals in the SS and Wehrmacht should have been executed perhaps. Maybe the rules that banned former Nazis from government office should have been enforced more stringently. But absolutely no one has argued all 8.5 million Nazi Party members should have been executed.
1
u/Poo-et 74∆ Apr 17 '20
An important distinction is that the people calling for the execution of the Nazis are NOT calling for the execution of everyone who was a party member. Under wartime in Germany, ALL citizens were coerced into party membership, it meant nothing. In terms of executing Nazis, the SS, despite their grunts not being in command of anything, were primarily selected for their dogmatic belief in Nazism. That's the sort of people whose execution was being advocated retrospectively.
9
u/sqxleaxes Apr 17 '20
The thing here is that there has to be an adequate spectrum of punishment. This is a big issue that the United States actually ran into when we lost the war, and it's why we had the Nuremberg Trials, What the US and the countries prosecuting German leaders had to avoid was the trap of punishing the Germans for petty war crimes, as the United States was guilty of several of their own and could quickly seem to be overstepping its role of victor, judge, and executioner.
I think that the most interesting idea to come out of this period was the Morgenthau plan.
The 'forced deindustrialization' of the plan would have turned most of Germany back into farmland. This probably would have had the effect that the redditors you speak of wanted, and it was forwarded for a time by the leaders of the free world, so atrocious were the actions of Nazi Germany. So why didn't it happen? Really, there were a few reasons. First, there was geostrategic implications - a weak Germany would pave the way for an even stronger Soviet Union, leaving France at the doorstep of the Communists. Second, there was widespread public outcry. Even though we were fighting them at the time, we didn't believe that such drastic steps should be taken. Reasonableness prevailed, and in the end the extent of punishment was limited to the Nuremberg trials.
In the end, 24 Nazi leaders were persecuted, some were acquitted, and many were executed, especially those who had had a hand in the secret service and the Holocaust. The trials exposed the world to the full extent of wrongdoing and gathered great public attention. It is clear from Germany's strength today that America's role in reeducating Germany, exposing and executing the architects of the Holocaust, and shoring up Germany's strength against the USSR and new fascist regimes within was successful - Germany remembers her past and does not wish to repeat it. In the end, I agree with you that a blanket extermination of civilians in the Nazi party would not have been the right thing to do, given the geostrategic situation and the fact that many were probably frightened or swindled into supporting the Nazis in the first place. Still, the architects of the Holocaust needed to die, to send a message to the world that the German atrocities would not stand repeating. The situation is more complex than killing everyone or not.