• Zwiebel
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    80
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    Ah yes removing nuance, always a win.

    This list is conveniently leaving out the motive of ‘being threatened’, because motives do sometimes matter.

    The proper term is “nazi-collaborateur”.

    And no I am of course not condoning any violence.

    • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      I am pretty sure if you join the Nazi party, you are a Nazi.

      A Nazi collaborator would be… a non Nazi, who worked with Nazis.

      • knatschus@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        16 days ago

        Some collaborators had the choice to either join the party later on or openly oppose them. In germany people who joined the party after the war started are often viewed different from those who followed early on.

        Just today i heared a podcast about Werner Foßmann and the fact that he joined the party in the early 30s was a point against him.

      • Zwiebel
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        36
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        Thank you for your nuanced reply and your openness for semantics discussion.

        Provocative question: Do you think then that the US should’ve strangled half the German population instead of just a dozen at the Nuremberg Trials because a Nazi is a Nazi?

        • AhismaMiasma@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          39
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          16 days ago

          No, we strangled the ones in charge and then forced the remainder to literally pay while their country was occupied. A culture of anti-nazism was forced upon the Germans with law.

          Growth is important for everyone. MAGA can still bend the knee and atone for their bigotry.

          • Zwiebel
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            16 days ago

            No you did not follow the Morgentau Plan. Instead you gave Germany a bunch of money to rebuild under the Marshall Plan, and treated us quite kindly to lead us on the right path. (In contrast to the USSR which took revenge by letting their soldiers rape and loot, and disassembled German industries as repayment. The Soviets also tried to forcibly “denazify” Germany which was unsucsessful.)

            No, we strangled the ones in charge and then […]

            So we agree that there is a difference between Nazis of different caliber, and they’re to be treated differently.

            • AhismaMiasma@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              21
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              16 days ago

              Yeah, the whole crux of my statement was we offed the ones in charge and helped the other ones realize the ghastly error of their ways. By force if necessary, but money tends to work too.

              Unless you’re saying we shouldn’t have fought against Nazis?

              Genuinely confused how people can be defending Nazis in 2024 but… here we are I guess.

              • Zwiebel
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                15 days ago

                I’m not defending Nazis? I just disagree with the post, which I understood calls for people to dismiss nuance and engage a black and white view. Which smells like populism to me

            • someguy3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              16 days ago

              they’re to be treated differently.

              What you’re conflating is being prosecuted for your war crimes. Holy bad faith.

        • pimento64@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 days ago

          Why did the debatelolds decide they were welcome here, instead of samethingawful 15 years ago where they belong?

    • Lupus
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      16 days ago

      The quote clearly states ‘joined the party’, those are NOT collaborateurs, those are members of the Nazi party, or as explained - Nazis.

      Nobody was threatened to join the party, historians agree on that, people who joined were either true believers or did so to gain some sort of advantage.

      The NSDAP, at their peak had 8.5 million members (1945), so around 20-25% of the German population at the time. We can argue about the other 80%, there is some nuance to be found there, of course. But those 20% Nazi Party members were Nazis, no nuance needed.

      • Zwiebel
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        Ok I can agree with that

        Your comment is very nuanced btw

    • superkret
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      No one was really threatened with violence to join the Nazi party.
      It never was a decision between joining and dying, or joining and going to prison.

      The choice for most was joining or losing an opportunity to advance their career.

      Even the guards at the concentration camps did the job voluntarily. Being offered the position was a chance to live like a medieval lord, with a mansion, servants, and actual direct power over people’s lives. The alternative was to continue living a mediocre life in Germany. That was enough incentive for enough people to staff the camps.