Quote:
Originally Posted by IvySpice
In many places -- particularly smaller cities like Nuremberg and in country towns -- the SS officers were the glitterati everybody wanted to associate with. Anybody who was anybody went to the rallies. That was the heartland of the Nazi base.
|
Yeah, but to say that this equals it being "socially acceptable" is an over-generalization, I think. Does the turnout in places like Nuremburg mean that all those who turned out were true believers who made the Nazi policies socially acceptable, or can a fair amount of it be attributed to people who were too afraid for their own security to disagree with or challenge the establishment? Many members of the Communist Party in the USSR did not really believe in what the Party stood for, and I would guess that the same could be said of many members of the National Socialist Party. That's the way it works in any one-party state.
I'm not saying that those who quietly went along should be equated to those who actively resisted, but neither should they be equated to those who truly believed in what the Party stood for. There's some grey here in figuring out when "acceptable to those who decide" is the same as "socially acceptable" across the population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IvySpice
Because if there were no negative social consequences to doing those things, then they were, by definition, socially acceptable.
|
Here's where I think we disagree. "Socially acceptable" means accepted or approved of by society in general, not just the absence of negative social consequences. Something may not have wide approval but still be tolerated because society in general believes it has little choice otherwise. Many Nazi policies may have been
de jure socially acceptable (acceptable because the law and force of the state made them acceptable), but not
de facto socially acceptable.
Threaded Mode
