Hitler's First Victims: The Quest for Justice

Hitler gradually came into power in Germany. The atrocities of the holocaust were also not something that happened all at once. Jews were and other minorities were treated moderately well at first. When some were attacked, the SS perpetrators were condemned. They were seen as bad individual actors, or possible the opposing party masquerading as national socialists. Dachau was a prison camp that still followed the law. However, the bad apples gradually gained more power. Josef Hartinger tried to expose and stop the bad behavior. Alas, his efforts failed and are fairly forgotten from history.

The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy

Wages of Destruction analyzes the rise and fall of Nazism from an economic perspective. Some of the seemingly nonsensical behaviors of the Nazi Germany do start to make a little more sense when looked at that one. Germany was suffering after World War 2. Even with some clever management, reparations took a toll on the economy. There was a significant portion of the country still working in agriculture, yet the country had trouble feeding itself. There was a shortage of available labor.

The National Socialists wanted to build up the economy and the military. They also had strong ideological beliefs about their racial superiority. (Somewhat ironically, Hitler viewed the British has being closer to Germans, yet chose to align with the "inferior" Russians.) Americans were viewed to be controlled by the Jews.

The Blitzkrieg attack on France was done in a "lean" fashion. The war would have been over if there were not a quick success. Germany did not have much left in reserve. The success was somewhat lucky. It helped inspire Hitler to engage in future actions.

Hitler knew he must fight the British. He viewed America as an enemy also as they were supplying the British. Germany was fairly resource constrained. More oil, iron and food were needed. Russia, a supposed ally had an abundance of natural resources. The invasion of Russia was hoped to be a quick action (like in France). It would provide Germany with resources that were needed to continue the war effort against the English speaking countries. When the Russians put up a greater fight than expected, Germany was toast.

The extermination of Jews and other undesirable also had its roots in the intersection of ideology and economics. There was not enough food to feed everybody. It would be more productive to feed one person sufficient food than to feed two partial rations. Exterminating undesirables would free up more food for other workers. (When more food was available, these worked could be worked as slave labor.)

There were also other interesting points. Germany had a higher female labor force participation than the UK. Hitler really wanted people to have cars. Many people put down deposits for Volkswagons, only to not get them due to the war and other things.

Boys in the Boat

 The book chronicles the story of the University of Washington crew team that won a gold medal at the Berlin Olympic games. The book details their history. The group were primarily working class boys from rural Washington. Most worked manual labor jobs (such as building Grand Coulee dam) in order to pay for school. They were a far cry from the elite rowers that they regularly competed with. Even after qualifying for the olympics, an Ivy league school offered to take their place, since they would have to pay their way.

The book intertwines the history of the Washington Crew team with the events of the world, including the rise of Hitler in Germany and the great depression in the US. The reaction of the Hitler Youth stuck out. These impressionable youth felt it their duty to carry out Nazi message. They were similar to youth in Communist Russia that would glorify communism at the expense of their elders. Today, we may look at things, and say "oh, we are now enlightened progressives. We would never be like the evil fascists." However, the actual ideology is largely irrelevant. I doubt most of the youth even have a good understanding of what the ideology is. Instead, they see "others" as not toeing the party line and punishing them. Today it may be attacking somebody on social media because they have the "wrong" views. (This may even take place in the name of "inclusiveness") Is taking down a website really much different from burning a book?

It is also interesting that Germany had "cleaned things up" for the Olympics. They put on a great facade to hide away the internal warfare going on in the country. They also did things very manually, thus creating a huge number of jobs. They were able to create a great Olympics - they just couldn't win everything.

Another takeaway is how things have changed. The olympic athletes still had to work their way through school. However, they could earn enough money over the summer to pay for school. Rowing was one of the more popular events at the olympics and attracted huge crowds. During the depression people adapted to find ways to earn money and grow food. The government safety net was much smaller. But, government interference and regulation was also much smaller. 

The championship rowers had a mixture of natural abilities and a passion for the sport. Rowing is an interesting sport that requires brute strength, technique and teamwork. There is a great deal of strategy involved to manage the group and competitive psychology as well as individual experience. University of Washington's championship team had their struggles, but were able to overcome them to put on a momentous performance. 

Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don't Know

The Talking to Strangers audiobook was produced more like a podcast, with a number of actual clips and re-enactments of relevant events. Malcolm Gladwell how people often do a really bad job of judging people we do not know. One problem is that we have certain facial clues that we think identify feelings and motivation. These features are displayed predominantly by characters in US sitcoms. However, they are not common to all societies or people. Often people can appear "guilty" simply because of their natural mannerisms. The disconnect between what is observed and actual character and feelings ends up causing all sorts of issues.
In one study, subjects participating in a study were given the opportunity to cheat. Later, the study recorded the subjects being questioned about whether or not they cheated. People judging these evaluation could easily identify liars who behaved like "liars" should (blushing, fidgety, etc.) However, they were regularly misled by those that gave confusing clues. A fidgety truth teller or a confident liar were more often than not misjudged.
People that think they can read character often fall victims to these assumptions. Judges that set bail want to meet and talk with the defendant to judge whether they can be set free. However, a blind AI that only looks at the rap sheet produced much more effective results.
Sex, violence, alcohol and protests all play a role in some of the difficult to judge situations. I wonder how often are criminal justice system is making things worse. An example was given of a psychologist who helps people uncover the deep sexual abuse that they may be repressing. Is this really unearthing something or just causing past feelings to be altered? The book also talks about people that were on friendly terms with people that were later accused of child sexual abuse. They later switch sides to fight against the abuser. Did the case turn something that did not impact them into something that they now find damaging? Or perhaps they are just showing solidarity or now see a chance to earn money. Do these cases really benefit victims? Or do they just create more victims. The witch hunts that come out afterwards create more issues. Churches are being bankrupted because of past priest activities. School presidents are being sued because they did not take "appropriate actions" against alleged perpetrators. However, the evidence that they had to consider were often circumstantial at best.

By default people assume others are telling the truth. If not, society will be painfully difficult to manage. However, this allows the non-truth tellers to continue on. How do we appropriately find the bad apples while not grinding society to a halt. The Amanda Knox case provided the counter to the Sandusky case. She just looked guilty. She served time in jail. When she was finally acquitted, there were Italian protests of a miscarriage of justice. In her case, the behavior seemed to indicate guilt despite innocence. With Sandusky, there was apparent innocence despite guilt. How can we make good decisions. (And are these decisions even right? Sandusky still maintains his innocence even after conviction.)

The Brock Turner case introduces alcohol to the story and makes it even messier. Two people at a party are blackout drunk engaging in sexual activity. One of them passes out as the other continues. Had that been all, they would have probably woken up later and wondered what exactly happened and wished they had not had so much to drink. However, two people stumbled across them. Brock ran away. Now he is branded for life as a sex criminal. The judge in the case last his position because he wasn't deemed by the public as hard enough. But is the case really cut and dry. If both parties are too drunk to remember, how could a rape even take place? Neither party could legally give consent. The laws concerning drinking and sexuality create a big mess. Sexual activity is legal if there is consent. However, people don't agree on what consent is. Further more, when drunk people's ability to make judgements and remember events is impaired. Somebody may have granted what appeared to be consent in the moment, but not remembered doing so. The only witnesses are often two people with incomplete, human memories trying to piece things together. They are heavily coached by attorneys to say the right thing. They may believe they are telling the truth. But, that does not mean they are. This is a problem with our entire legal system. Sex crimes can be even worse because whether or not it is a crime depends almost entirely on the victim's intent. The punishment is also extreme, with sex criminals often being required to register as a sex offender for life.

In the court of public opinion can even be worse. The chat rooms love to "speak up for the little guy". Anybody committing an offense against children most be 100% evil. Anybody that employed them or even said something slightly positive about them must also be punished. Thus, the judge in the Brock Turner case lost his job because he agreed with a lenient sentence. The President of Penn State was convicted of child endangerment. (He was able to have it overturned on a technicality - the law he was convicted under did not exist when he was deemed to have committed a crime.) This seems an awfully lot like a witch hunt. And it probably does not do much good for actual victims. Adults that were abused as children may not have been impacted at all by the actions. The accusations may actually create harm where none previously existed. For those that were harmed, they may be required to dredge up something that they have recovered from, or they may continue to be suffering. They could hope to relish in seeing the perpetrator suffer. For most people, that would be it. However, if the abuser happens to be part of a large organization, then the victim may receive a huge amount. The organizations are often ones that devote resources to youth. Because of a few bad apples these organizations are paying huge amounts to a few victims and their lawyers rather than helping youth. To protect themselves they must go overboard implementing strict policies to remove any prospective abusers. This may end up negatively impacting the children. (Abuse may continue outside the purview of organization. Or children may look for other, even worse sources of fulfillment.) The real winners here are primarily lawyers and politicians. They can claim to be doing something to protect children. The lawyers get the bonus of a big chunk of money.
At the same time, we have a movement in the opposite direction focused on police violence, especially against minorities. "Black Lives Matter" is primarily concerned with police being too harsh against black people. The cases that gain attention (and lead to protests) are often seemingly excessive responses to minor infractions. Malcolm Gladwell talks about the case of Sandra Brown who committed suicide in a jail cell after the escalation from a traffic stop due to a failure to signal a lane change. As with the rape case, there was blame on both sides. The cop probably should not have pulled her over in the first place. (She was moving to get out of his way!) He also should not have escalated the situation. However, she could have complied with orders and not had the situation escalate. She could also have made bail. She also committed suicide. While there are a few highly publicized cases of police brutality against innocent people, most cases start with a crime. Somebody commits an offense and then receives an excessive police response. This seems similar to the "throw the book at the sex offender" attitude, only the protestors are on the other side.
Amanda Knox served time in Italy for the murder of her roommate. When she was finally acquitted, people, convinced she did it, protested. When the judge in the Brock Turner case gave him a sentence less than people hoped for, the protestors led a recall campaign to remove him from the bench. When Michael Brown was shot in Missouri, people protested against police violence. The Jerry Sandusky situation was even more surreal with many heads rolling. Students and politicians Tennessee refused an offer to Greg Schiano because somebody provided third hand information that Schiano new something about Sandusky. The merits of a case do not matter so much as the court of public opinion. There is a need to defend the "weak" even if it means needlessly destroying others.
How do we prevent the bad apples, while still living a productive life? Kansas City did have a good experience. They focussed police patrols in high crime areas. The officers would pull cars over for the most minor crimes and then search for any more series violations. This worked because it was focused on the most high crime areas. Actions are often location dependent. Prostitutes like to work their street. Criminals work their turf. Even Golden Gate Bridge jumpers are likely to not commit suicide if they can't jump from the bridge. Alas, this "agressive" policing strategy does not help when carried out on a large scale. Most people committing minor infractions on a random road are innocent of other crimes. A generalized targetting may feel "just", but it is more likely to be a waste of time. How can we find Bernie Madoff's and their ponzi schemes without making financial transactions too onerous to complete? Trust but verify is a good catchword, but is still a challenge when dealing with strangers.

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany

William Shirer was a journalist who lived in Germany during the rise of Hitler. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich covers the life of Hitler and his rise and eventual fall from power. It is extremely verbose, and spends a lot of time covering the early stages of the third Reich (the time when the author was present in Germany.) He inserts plenty of his own opinion in the work. The author seems to have an extremely negative few of Hitler, with an underlying message that he only came to power because of his Stormtrooper thugs. However, that does seem a bit too simplistic. (Were these thugs requiring everyone to buy Mein Kaumpf?) He is quick to demean all aspects of national socialism. (The Nazi "arts" were constantly demeaned.) The rise felt like it was excessively colored by the knowledge of the impending fall.

The "fall" part is more rushed. Much of the space is devoted to the cruelty of the nazi regime. The "science experiments" may have had some intention of finding ways to help German troops, but they were primarily just torture and executions. The torture and extermination of the Jews had no excuse other then that the German's thought they were the source of problems. Even slavs were treated as inferior, with education of these "brutes" seen as something bad.
The book has a strong journalistic feel. It delves into the sensationalist and the strong personality. The historical actions are covered, but not in as great detail as the characters. Hitler's petty attacks and grudges are presented as a reason for Germany's defeat. If he would not have devoted effort to quash Yugoslavia, the Soviet attack could have been carried out earlier, leading to a more likely German victory. If he wouldn't have pandered to his "alies" (or stabbed them in the back) he could have kept his small empire without further conflict. The many attempts to assassinate Hitler are also given plenty of coverage. What would have happened if they had succeeded?

A History of Hitler's Empire

This series of lectures does a great job of presenting Hitler in his time. The key events that lead to his power in Germany were described. Hitler's strengths along with the proper sidekicks and right situations all helped him gain power. The Nazi party had a bizarre set of values. However, in the nutcase that was interwar Germany the simple "we stand for something different" was all that was needed to gain a large share of the votes.

The early rise of Hitler's nazi party seems perfectly legitimate. Later on there was a little thugery. However, even that could be brushed aside. Hitler was a deft salesman, often building off of the supposed international abuses to unite the German people. The catch was the logical extension - you either go on conquering, or have your empire implode as you run out of enemies.

The actual war years only hold a brief section of this work. A disproportionate amount of the war coverage relates to the Holocaust. However, the actual extermination of the Jews seems to have been not very well known in the world or inside Germany until near the end of the war. The attack on Jews was a natural extension of the "unity through enemies" approach carried out by Nazi party. However, when the enemies are different and have money, they become easy target. The impression in these lectures is that the cruelty originated from lower level functionaries, but those higher up did not object and later gave their approval. (Some even began to take pride in their ability to "dehumanization" them.)

The lectures bring out the point that Hitler was not some gross aberration, but a product of our western culture. Germany of the time had one of the most open, educated, liberal welfare states. However, it also felt abused by other nations, and was thus ready for someone to unite them against a common enemy. Unfortunately, this had disastrous results. Could this be repeated again?