The History Book Club discussion
THE SECOND WORLD WAR
>
WE ARE OPEN - WEEK TWO - MILITARY SERIES: HANNS AND RUDOLF - May 19th - May 25th - Chapter(s) Two and Three: 2: Hanns, Berlin, Germany, 1917 and 3: Rudolf, Berlin, Germany, 1918 (17 - 43) No Spoilers, Please
Mod
However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion. Thought that I would add that.
Mod
Chapter Two: (2: Hanns, Berlin, Germany, 1917)
Chapter Two describes the childhood of Hanns Hermann Alexander born on May 6th, 1917, fifteen minutes before his twin brother, Paul, at his parents' expansive apartment on the Kaiserallee, in West Berlin. The chapter goes on to describe the home life of young Hanns, parenting styles that he was exposed to and both of Hanns' parents.
Chapter Three: (3: Rudolf, Berlin, Germany, 1918)
Chapter Three traces the events of Rudolf's life from 1918 through July 14, 1928 when he was released from prison. This time period dealt with his escape from Damascas, his involvement in a Freikorp mission fighting the Russians and the Latvians. During the fighting the Germans adopted a new constitution (Weimar Republic) and later Rudolf joined the National Socialists - was involved in the slaying of a fellow who had betrayed a former brother-soldier and subsequently served a sentence which was commuted to a four year out of the ten year term. This was quite a ten year period for Rudolf.
Mod
Mod
In Chapter Two we meet the family of Hanns Hermann Alexander who was born on May 6th, 1917, fifteen minutes before his twin brother, Paul, at his parents' expansive apartment on the Kaiserallee, in west Berlin.
The two boys were war time babies conceived when their father - Dr. Alfred Alexander - was on leave. There were also two young daughters: Bella and Elsie.
The author describes the family life of Hanns and talks about the parents of Hanns (Dr. Alfred Alexander and Henny).
Let us first focus on Dr. Alfred Alexander - the father - what kind of man was he and how did he differ from Rudolf's father. What differences were apparent or were there any similarities. How different was the upbringing of Hanns versus the upbringing of Rudolf.
Do you think that Dr. Alexander had more impact upon his son than Rudolf's father - If so, in what ways?
How was the home life different? And how would you compare both men as fathers - and how would you compare their relationships and impacts on their sons?
How did Hanns grow up and what were his influences?
Mod
I have so many thoughts on these two chapters, I don't know where to begin. I did find it interesting that Hanns and his twin were rarely disciplined. Was this because they were twins? Boys? Or because his father was absent much of the time? I wonder if the girls were more disciplined? Both Hanns and Rudolf had siblings yet Hann's childhood seemed more family oriented than Rudolf's.I am starting to get a better feel for Rudolf's early life but feel like he's conflicted since he makes reference to seeking soldier comraderie yet was a loner. He commits a brutal murder yet he is bothered by tales of murder in prison?
Mod
I found it notable that Mrs. Alexander's parents, who had remained Orthodox, were from Frankfurt. Because of the work of Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch in Frankfurt in the 19th century, many Jews resisted the Reform movement and remained Orthodox. It's good to know that his influence lasted for generations afterward.
Rudolf was, in many ways, an abandoned child. Hanns, on the other hand grew up in a nurturing, loving household. But then, I think, I am comparing apples and oranges. Hanns life was that of an urban, upper middle class family. Rudolf's was that of a rural, agricultural community. Rudolf's family was impacted more by the Armistice than was Hanns'. And clearly, the humiliation of the Versailles treaty had a greater emotional impact on some sections of the German population than on others. It is interesting that Rudolf refused to give up the military after the war officially ended. They'd become his family.
I found the activities of the Friekorp to be very interesting. Not something that I was all to familiar with. Rudolf appeared to be someone who was deeply affected by his experiences in WWI and he felt the most comfortable in a military brotherhood, actually seeking this out rather than resuming a more routine life.
There were many, many nationalistic groups like the one Rudolf joined at the end of the war, and it's clear that they were part of creating the Nazis of the future. There they were, a whole bunch of young men who'd fought in a lost war. They were trained in violence, inured to death, and angry about the defeat. That's a big part of why Hitler had so many minions.
Hi All - let me join in here for a moment. Remember, that Hanns' father fought in the war, he visited trenches, treated men who suffered from gas. Many thousands of Jews also fought in WW1. They too felt the consequences of defeat, hyperinflation, loss of national pride, loss of national land, rampant unemployment. This can also be said of many of the communinists, who later fought the Nazis, and other groups that were targeted - Thomas
Sarah wrote: "I have so many thoughts on these two chapters, I don't know where to begin. I did find it interesting that Hanns and his twin were rarely disciplined. Was this because they were twins? Boys? Or be..."I was thinking the same thing with Rudolf. I did sense conflict if Rudolf as well, especially when he spoke of the being a longer but having that sense of security with the other soldiers. Also with the violence as well being, bothered by what he saw and heard yet committed brutal acts himself, and the clinical tone in the way he described the murder. I wonder how he seperated thatm why was he bothered by one and not the other>
I did find his opinion on Hitler interesting as well with agreeing with that he was saying but rejecting the propaganda aspect as well.
Thomas wrote: "Remember, that Hanns' father fought in the war, he visited trenches, treated men who suffered from gas. Many thousands of Jews also fought in WW1."Yes, of course. Jews were fighting on both sides. One of the most inspiring stories I've heard is that a German Jew was about to kill a British Jew in World War I, heard him say the Shema prayer, and didn't kill him. I'll bet it happened many times.
Although many groups sprang up in Germany after the armistice, I have always had the impression that the Freikorps was the seed which blossomed into the SS. The SS initially surrounded Hitler as his personal bodyguard but went on to be the most feared organization in Nazi Germany. Rudolf was an active member of the Freikorps and did not hesitate to murder. It seems logical that once Hitler came to power, Rudolf would become a member of the SS, along with many of his old compatriots.
I read somewhere else about the Epps Freikorps, and now Rudolf joins the Rossbach Freikorps, which was banned in 1921. Does that mean all Freikorps units were banned? It seems contradictory to me that Rudolf could participate in the besting death of Kadow, yet be so upset by the description of murder by a fellow prisoner.
Tomi wrote: "It seems contradictory to me that Rudolf could participate in the besting death of Kadow, yet be so upset by the description of murder by a fellow prisoner."He was responsible for the murder of two and a half million people, yet he was a kind-hearted father. There's no end to the contradictions.
Thomas wrote: "Hi All - let me join in here for a moment. Remember, that Hanns' father fought in the war, he visited trenches, treated men who suffered from gas. Many thousands of Jews also fought in WW1. They to..."Yes, of course. Thank you, Thomas. It seems, though, that Hanns father and mother had a greater determination to overcome and move past the obstacles of post war Germany. They wanted to thrive in whatever environment they found themselves.
But I am struggling not to be repulsed by the young Rudolf. His delusional view of murder is just impossible to justify. And as I read about him, as he grows up, he is slipping deeper into the shadows even with his conflicted view of Hitler. Unlike Hanns, I don't see any joy of life in him, only anger. But, it is early in the book!
Jill wrote: "Although many groups sprang up in Germany after the armistice, I have always had the impression that the Freikorps was the seed which blossomed into the SS. The SS initially surrounded Hitler as hi..."From what I found, the SS did have some root to the Freikorps either directly or indirectly (conflicting info on the internet).
I agree with others that it is somewhat contradictory that Rudolf struggles with some of the devastation he sees, yet he seems not to have an issue with killing Kadow; however, Rudolf says that he firmly believed that Kadow should die as a traitor. (pg 37) He was able to disassociate his feelings from the man and kill him with no remorse. He saw this as a duty. From what I have read, Hitler was like this himself. Hitler could show compassion, which is why he was liked by so many at the time; but he could completely turn around and see a whole race of people as not human and order their executions. Is there a mental/personality disorder behind these men and their actions or is it upbringing (at least in what we're reading about Rudolf)?
We definitely see contrasting family life between Hanns and Rudolf. Hanns was closer to his family and where Rudolf's was strict/structured and later non-existent. Obviously Rudolf was looking for "family" in the military.
Adolf Hitler
Bentley wrote: "Discussion Topic: (Fathers and Sons)In Chapter Two we meet the family of Hanns Hermann Alexander who was born on May 6th, 1917, fifteen minutes before his twin brother, Paul, at his parents' expa..."
Hanns seemed to have had a father that was at home from time to time to father him more. He had a father figure to look up to. Rudolf did not.
Mod
Both men had different fathers with different styles. Hanns' father was very outgoing and gregarious, not a strong disciplinarian, was a successful doctor and the family lived in Berlin. Rudolf's father was rather less outgoing, rather strict and they lived a more rural existence.Hanns and his brother Paul had a lot of freedom, to the point they were a couple of maniacs pulling pranks and causing mischief. Boys being boys. Rudolf on the other hand had far less freedom and more discipline.
I'm curious how Rudolf would have turned out in had his family been more like the Alexanders.
How would world history have turned out if he had just been content to stay on his farm with Hedwig and the kids?
Kressel wrote: "How would world history have turned out if he had just been content to stay on his farm with Hedwig and the kids?"I don't know if that would have a huge difference. I'm sure there were hundreds of other men of similar attitudes who would have been a suitable replacement for Rudolf. Maybe they might not have had the intangibles or abilities of Rudolf, or they might have better. Can't really know.
Brian wrote: "I don't know if that would have a huge difference. I'm sure there were hundreds of other men of similar attitudes who would have been a suitable replacement for Rudolf."Too true, unfortunately.
I don't know how much of this is apocryphal, but according to my grandmother I had cousins in France during the war. One was a collaborator and had her head shaved at the end of the war; the other was in the resistance and died during the war. So the nature vs nurture argument only goes so far.I tend to the nurture side, and believe the strong nuclear family that Hanns experienced was something Rudolf only dreamt of, but tried to create in his military experience. Hanns strong and vital mother certainly played a role in who he became. Rudolf did not have that experience. And since he joined the military at an extraordinarily young age, I find it difficult to think of him as having any family at all.
Mod
Discussion Question:
What were the differences between the two mothers?
Rudolf's versus Hanns?
Rudolf's mother was "...a distant mother, who was either taking care of his two small sisters or in bed recuperating from some sickness." (pg. 9)Henny "...was possesed of a keen sense of humor. She was known for her kindness and willingness to help others...Strong-willed and opinionated, she was the matriarch and heart of the family." (pg. 21)
They were definitely very different and each interacted differently with Hanns and Rudolf. One cold and distant while the other was warm and engaging.
I think that the family lives of the men did play a part in their personalities and make-up, affecting their values and decision making as they grew into adulthood. My personal opinion, however, is that it went beyond that for Rudolf. I think it was more than just his home and family life. Like G alluded to, it goes beyond just nature vs. nuture. I think it's a combination of all of it. Rudolf was affected by his military family and likely had some psychological/neurological issue. We learned in Chapter 3 how depressed he got when he was told that he would not leave prison when he thought he would. I think we are gaining some insight to his emotional and psychological state of mind. He could be compassionate yet we see how easily it was for him to kill.
Mod
I agree, Bentley. Rudolf was of a military mind set practically from the start of his young life. He saw action in the War and then was a part of the Freikorps which was "running wild". I'm just not convinced that his relationship with his parents had that much to do with his later evil acts but rather his associations with killing and people of like minds.
So I agree with much of the thoughts but so far we are looking, I think, at Rudolf's life up to a far later age than Hanns.Rudolf had a stern non connective father, it seems, from the beginning. And he had a preplanned future. and he had to obey.
It could be that his lack of fond memories of his father was offset by the officer that "adopted" him in WWI.
In any case Rudolf learned to kill and liked it and seems to have been so exposed to it that if the opponent or "other guy" was not his comrade then the opponent did not get much consideration.
He is opposing classes of people, the Indian he first killed, the Latvians etc etc. - this could transfer to the Jews and Gypsies I guess in a future society where they were villified.
Hanns was spoiled and while his father may have worried and may have had non easy times it doesn't seem that they were very tough for post WWI Germany and I get the feeling from the reading that they probably never filtered down to the level of Hanns' daily life.
Maybe we can begin to think that Rudolf was responsive to opportunity and Hanns was responsive to responsibility (fighting with the Brits in WW II - raising his family - and when the time came going after Rudolf if he thought that was somehow a responsibility.)
I think their lives will not parallel and that this will be a story and explanation and a search to understand them individually but they will not be "comparable".
First, I'd like to say how much I appreciate that Thomas has joined us and agreed to answer our questions. Second, I think it is important to remember to read the Q & A thread. I had a question, and decided to finally read that thread, where it was answered (before I wrote it) by Thomas. He says in a post that Rudolf became who he was by making choices. He chose to become a mass murderer. (I am paraphrasing). Others, with lives which were much harsher did not. It is my opinion, however, that the environment in Germany at the time made those choices easier.
The whole nation chose to become mass murderers. That's why it's so mind-boggling.
While reading the first two chapters, I have a few concerns for these two boys.1. Hanns and his brother are not punished for their "acting like boys". This often leads to no boundaries established for the child/children. They in turn seek to push the limits and become uncontrollable and sometimes ignored. Although it sounds like they were encouraged in the "bad" behavior.
2. The betrayal of the confessional code for Rudolf cannot be understated. That is BIG stuff. He was 13 years old, and the priest betrayed him. He was already having trouble trusting anyone in his life.
3. I also understand the killing and exacting revenge in Rudolf's life was a way for him to control his environment/justice and a way to feel any emotion.(Not condoning his behavior)
Mod
I personally do not blame all of the German people - there are many good people there who suffered and some who assisted in sheltering those who would have been sent to Auschwitz and other places. When armed soldiers are patrolling the streets with guns and people are whisked away - never to be seen again - the thought would cross my mind that it could be me or my family who is also never seen again.
However, I do agree that Rudolf is different - and he did make choices which could have been different and I believe that his relationship with his father and his home life did in fact move him in the wrong direction from the very beginning and he probably had psychological issues as well - does that excuse him - of course not - but I think it helps us understand the situation a bit better.
G I think you also made another good point about the environment in Germany which made certain choices easier - that is more than likely spot on.
Mod
Do two wrongs make a right? How do you feel about capital punishment in general? Do you think that by killing some of the Nazis (Nuremberg Trials) that the world was a better place after their deaths - was it the right punishment - should they have remained in solitary confinement for the remainder of their lives as a constant reminder of what they had done and why they were there? Should Saddam Hussein have been hung for example or anybody who commits acts of inhumanity be hung or executed because they themselves killed others or many others. Does murder of the perpetrator assist society in general or is one act the same as the other at its core?
Who determines which acts done by Nazis were so egregious that the person dies while another former Nazi lives? What are the differences?
Does it all boil down to how someone feels about capital punishment, war crimes in general or acts against humanity and how they should be punished and how you get around the commandment that says - Thou shalt not kill.
Obviously we know the ending for Rudolf Hoss - he killed and he ended up dead (discussion to follow in the book) - but was that the fitting punishment and ending for Nazis who carried out horrendous and despicable orders resulting in so many good peoples' demise and suffering? Or should they have suffered a slow punishment over many, many years where they had time to suffer in solitary confinement.
Mod
In the Q & A - the author mentioned that this was one of Hanns' favorite poems and that he liked to read it at special occasions or family gatherings as an adult - from these early chapters of his childhood - are there any indications of the man he might become and do these words reflect that future and his outlook?
If—
BY RUDYARD KIPLING
(‘Brother Square-Toes’—Rewards and Fairies)
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!
Source: A Choice of Kipling's Verse (1943)
Rudyard Kipling
Bentley wrote: "However, I do agree that Rudolf is different - and he did make choices which could have been different and I believe that his relationship with his father and his home life did in fact move him in the wrong direction from the very beginning and he probably had psychological issues as well - does that excuse him - of course not - but I think it helps us understand the situation a bit better.G I think you also made another good point about the environment in Germany which made certain choices easier - that is more than likely spot on."
Very well stated!
First let me state, subsequently to acquiring the book I sat down and read the whole thing in two sittings. Re-reading the work in order to participate in this indepth discussion has given me a better insight as to how well researched and written it is. Hanns's background is somewhat elite and above the normal German's both before and after the war. His father Dr. Alfred Alexander and his mother were strong willed and dominant and it shows they taught Hanns and his siblings to be very self confident and included them in the family circle. His father's ability to restart his medical practice and build it to the the point it was supporting the family in a very well heeled lifestyle after the war and especially with the chaos in the economy and society in general at that time; I'm sure gave Hanns a role model and taught him several lessons in how to handle the world. Beyond his parents and immediate siblings he also had grandparents, aunts and uncles, etc. that supported him; something Rudolf did not have or experience.
@ Bentley - You're right that it wasn't everyone in Germany, but the vast majority of Germans went along with it. This is much more than us knowing about the kidnapping in Nigeria and not doing anything about it. Who were the Hitler youth? Who were the soldiers? Who informed the Nazis, "Hey, there are Jews in that house?" A whole lot of average German citizens, that's who. And yes, there were righteous gentiles who risked their lives to protect Jews, but they were the minority.
Mod
And of course there were the others - many others - who supported the Nazi effort for financial reasons etc. which had nothing to do with the Jewish people. I just would be very cautious about castigating even the vast majority of any race or country.
Let me give you an example, there was the Iraq War under George Bush (many Americans were against that war before it happened and while it was going on) - however it happened anyway and the American people were not told the truth about the genesis of that conflict - yet the war happened and many in the Middle East blame America and Americans for that conflict and the residual difficulties that Iraq is facing. Are those the right feelings to have - obviously not - the average American and the majority of Americans had nothing to do with that conflict and could not have stopped it from happening no matter what they did.
It was out of their control - I do think that for many Germans - what the Nazis did was out of their control too. I am not talking about the snitches who told the Nazis that Jewish people were in a specific house.
Having said that Kressel, nobody should ever forget what happened to the Jewish people at Auschwitz and other locations like it. These events were despicable, hateful and a lot of world leaders could have and should have done more. And they didn't - shame on them. Remember FDR was one of those folks who should have done more and could have done more. We think of FDR as a great president and he was a great president - but nevertheless he could have done more.
This is a very sensitive subject I know for many who have suffered and it is an important subject to talk about and to understand. Because it is indeed chilling that an average person like Rudolf could do what he did.
G wrote: "First, I'd like to say how much I appreciate that Thomas has joined us and agreed to answer our questions. Second, I think it is important to remember to read the Q & A thread. I had a question, an..."Yes, thanks for pointing people back to the Q&A. I agree many of my questions have been answered there. You should also check out the Glossary thread -- some interesting history there too.
Kressel wrote: "@ Bentley - You're right that it wasn't everyone in Germany, but the vast majority of Germans went along with it. This is much more than us knowing about the kidnapping in Nigeria and not doing any..."Well there were also those Germans who disagreed and felt that they could do nothing. My own grandfather left Germany because of the political views between the two wars. He was certainly not a hero, but neither was he evil because he did not help those being persecuted.
Bentley wrote: "Here are some controversial questions: (I am sure that folks will be highly charged about these discussion questions - either on one side or the other)Do two wrongs make a right? How do you feel..."
I am very torn on the capital punishment issue. On the one hand I feel that life in prison would be a hellish existence. Stuck in one place unable to do as you wish would be just awful. I am currently dealing with some health issues that limit my freedom to wonder around as well as my income, so when I do get out, I really can't do much. So its the limited freedom these last few months could be fueling these feelings. But on the other hand, some people deserve to die. This side of the issue is fueled by how I would probably react if someone did something hideous to a loved one. Given an opportunity, it would be extremely difficult for me to exact revenge upon them. Is that wrong? Would it be more satisfying to know they are rotting away in prison? Would anything really bring satisfaction in a situation like that? I cannot say having not been in that predicament. And, hopefully, never will.
Teri said:We learned in Chapter 3 how depressed he got when he was told that he would not leave prison when he thought he would. I think we are gaining some insight to his emotional and psychological state of mind. He could be compassionate yet we see how easily it was for him to kill.
I'm getting the impression that Rudolf was very self-centered. He was very upset, emotional and depressed by being incarcerated, yet later he could inflict the same and worse on others. He was perfectly fine with committing murder, but was very upset by the murder committed in prison. It seems like he doesn't process that others have feelings?
I haven't read ahead, but I'll be very interested in how he was as a husband and father. Some of the earlier comments make it seem like all was well in his home.
As for Hanns, I was a little concerned that the parents just let the twins get away with all of the pranks. As the mother of a son, I don't think I could let that go on without at least having a conversation with him.
Brian wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Here are some controversial questions: (I am sure that folks will be highly charged about these discussion questions - either on one side or the other)Do two wrongs make a right? ..."
I had begun to draft some comments on the various comments so far on this section and had ceased looking for a smoother way to say what I thought.
I am prompted by Brian Sandor’s comment to say something. I am sorry for his limited freedom for a short period to time but does that justify permanent conclusions for others?
First I think that vengeance is a subjective goal and maybe suitable for individuals but should not be for most Judeo- Christian societies.
I think that the ultimate result of capital punishment is that the culprit will not again inflict their work on others.
The other factor to consider (am I mercenary?) is that if someone has done a deed that we would not want to have repeated on society why should society have to pay X dollars/euros or yen each year to support them?
And a further on capital punishment - so that penalty assures that that person will not hurt others again. Before trustworthy prisons (so if we believe that the dirty dog will never be able to cause harm again) maybe there was reasonable justification. The main reason or justification is to protect society from additional injuries I think. I don’t think one can ever get enough “revenge” and certainly cannot undo what has been done. I also should mention that convictions are not always correct. People other than responsible thinking member of the HBC wind up on juries.
Further from my original draft thoughts I would make a couple of comments on the culpability of the German people. At what point does a people have to take ultimate responsibility for their country? That the German people suffered under the Versailles treaty and post WWI and that Hitler sort of finessed Von Hindenburg to let him in should not in the long run count. But they didn't have such a long run. It is so hard to know.
In America we tolerated vicious slavery for centuries even it if was not the whole country - and it took us 85 years from the Declaration of Independence and over 70 years from the Constitution to begin the effort to overturn it (but only when the slave holders started the shooting).
I would also comment that the Hitler Youth started with children so young that they were truly indoctrinated and it is hard to fault them and before the war was over many of them were old enough to be soldiers. (Were they more indoctrinated than the Christians that went to fight the Crusades against the infidels?)
I am not so sure and certainly tyrants often got to power in the first half (and second half) of the 20th century - and some stayed long and still continue.
Such a lack of empathy in Germany is hard to comprehend for the civilized western country that it was in say 1910.
Regarding Bentley's reference to Iraq I would just note that these were not Americans. Maybe American slaveholders thought that Negros were not Americans. Maybe Germans were convinced they could make Jews non-Germans as they did within their laws.
But then they also made Jews globally victims so it was not just German Jews.
So for those interested a couple of years ago I took a course on “Evil”
Books read were
On Evil
Adam MortonThe Eichmann Trial
The Science of Evil
The Adversary
On Violence
If one wants to take the time.
So it is very complicated. The German people were to some extent culpable. It was a breakdown that should put fear in the hearts of all.
PS - two pieces of perspective - my Jewish mother's family left in Europe was wiped out and my wife is a 1953 born German (west)
Mod
by
Terry Eagleton
by
Deborah E. Lipstadt
by
Simon Baron-Cohen
by
Emmanuel Carrère
by
Hannah Arendt
"@ Bentley - You're right that it wasn't everyone in Germany, but the vast majority of Germans went along with it. This is much more than us knowing about the kidnapping in Nigeria and not doing any..."Many Germans went along with it because when Hitler came to power the economy improved and Hitler had so much charisma they were drawn to following him and his ideology. But as Bentley states all people did not follow him. Those on my grandparents side did all they could to try to help those opposed and my grandfather actually went to fight the opposition on the French side and was killed. My mother was a small child during the war in a small town near Frankfurt and in constant terror and told me how they were always in hiding. They hid in a basement when the Nazis took over their house. She was so happy when the Americans came and the war finally ended. And when she was 18, she married my father who was an American soldier and liberator of Dachau concentration camp.
As Vince I also have 2 perspectives as I was born in Germany of a German mother but married an American Jew and am Jewish myself.
Mod
You certainly can look at this from different filters. We appreciate your sharing your story.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
On Violence (other topics)On Evil (other topics)
The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty (other topics)
The Adversary: A True Story of Monstrous Deception (other topics)
The Eichmann Trial (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Hannah Arendt (other topics)Hannah Arendt (other topics)
Terry Eagleton (other topics)
Simon Baron-Cohen (other topics)
Deborah E. Lipstadt (other topics)
More...
For the week of May 19th - May 25th, we are reading Chapters Two and Three of Hanns and Rudolf..
The second week's reading assignment is:
Week Two - May 19th - May 25th
2: Hanns, Berlin, Germany, 1917 and 3: Rudolf, Berlin, Germany, 1918
(17 - 43)
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.
This book was kicked off on May 12th.
We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, local bookstore or on your Kindle. Make sure to pre-order now if you haven't already. This weekly thread will be opened up May 18th.
There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.
Bentley will be leading this discussion and back-up will be Assisting Moderators Jerome, Kathy and Libby.
Welcome,
~Bentley
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL
REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.
Notes:
It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.
Citations:
If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.
If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...
Introduction Thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Table of Contents and Syllabus
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Q&A with Thomas Harding (the author):
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Glossary
Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Bibliography
There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in his research or in his notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - SPOILER THREAD
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Directions on how to participate in a book offer and how to follow the t's and c's - Hanns and Rudolf - What Do I Do Next?
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...