South vs. North?

[IvySpice]

Many members of the Communist Party in the USSR did not really believe in what the Party stood for

But that doesn't mean that it was socially unacceptable to be a party member. On the contrary, your point suggests that there was enormous social pressure to go along with the majority. Which means that it was socially acceptable -- in fact, socially expected -- to do so.

Why do you think the officials at the Wansee Conference tried to keep the plans for the Final Solution a huge secret?

Largely because Jews wouldn't get on the trains if they knew where they were going. It was critical to keep up the illusion that there would be a life in camp: labeling the luggage, etc. But everyone in Europe knew that Jews (and Gypsies, and gays, and Communists, etc.) were being tormented in every possible way short of gassing them -- they were kicked out of their homes, schools and businesses, branded, segregated, rounded up, and deported. Frankly, you didn't need to know that they were being gassed to know that a gigantic crime and outrage against humanity was being perpetrated. It was well known, and it was tolerated.

There were plenty of upper-class people in the South who (according to their diaries) knew darn well that slavery was evil, but they also knew that their own position in society was at risk if they spoke up or joined abolitionist groups. The fact that they stayed quiet out of fear and social pressure, just like some Germans at Nuremberg rallies may have, doesn't change the fact that it was socially acceptable to go along with the system and socially unacceptable to object.

ere'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.

Indeed, this is where we disagree. In my opinion, if there are no negative social consequences to a behavior, then the behavior is de facto accepted in that society. I don't think it matters whether a silent bystander feels disapproval deep in his heart, or is secretly pleased by what he sees. It's behavior that determines social rules, not feelings.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by IvySpice

Largely because Jews wouldn't get on the trains if they knew where they were going. It was critical to keep up the illusion that there would be a life in camp: labeling the luggage, etc. But everyone in Europe knew that Jews (and Gypsies, and gays, and Communists, etc.) were being tormented in every possible way short of gassing them -- they were kicked out of their homes, schools and businesses, branded, segregated, rounded up, and deported. Frankly, you didn't need to know that they were being gassed to know that a gigantic crime and outrage against humanity was being perpetrated. It was well known, and it was tolerated.

Please explain to me how it was "tolerated". Please do. I am dumbfounded that you think the Holocaust was socially accepted simply because there were no negative consequences towards those who disagreed with it. To be honest, I'll disagree with that as well....strongly. There were thousands upon thousands of people in Germany that were put on trial, deported, or executed for operating as opponents towards the regime or those who verged on dissent. In the political realms of Germany, high end non-Jewish politicians who opposed the Nazi party only had their lives spared because they stayed clear of organized opposition. To say that their were no negative consequences is very ignorant. Futhermore, I don't think it is accurate to assume that if the Jews knew about the Final Solution they simply wouldn't "get on the trains". Do you honestly think the Einsatzgruppen wouldn't have simply forced them on? I have to think they could simply out of fear of being executed if they didn't comply.

You should read up on Ernst Nolte. Excellent works on comparative history between the Nazi and Soviet Regimes.