The Psychological Profile of Nazi "Killers"

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
fireofice
Member
Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 22, 2018 1:55 am

The Psychological Profile of Nazi "Killers"

Postby fireofice » 1 week 5 days ago (Sat Sep 12, 2020 5:19 pm)

A video by an antifa Youtuber named Three Arrows put out a video quite a while ago called "How Societies Turn Cruel - feat. Sargon of Akkad".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8UzmLsXGRU

The point of the video is to explain how ordinary democratic societies can end up committing genocide. At about 13:30 in, he cites Richard Evans who says that if you were to ask someone from before the time of the Third Reich which country was most likely to commit a genocide against Jews, they would say France or Russia. Germany would never have occurred to them.

At around 14:50 he goes into some psychological experiments done on the Nazis to determine if they were crazed psychopaths. Turns out, they were psychologically normal. Of course, he uses this to try and say how anyone, even normal people, can do horrific things. :roll:

Or perhaps they never did these horrific things.

The Nazis also scored pretty high on IQ tests.

https://history.info/on-this-day/1945-w ... ders-have/

User avatar
Sannhet
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 679
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:12 pm
Location: USA

Re: The Psychological Profile of Nazi "Killers"

Postby Sannhet » 1 week 4 days ago (Sun Sep 13, 2020 2:15 am)

fireofice wrote:he goes into some psychological experiments done on the Nazis to determine if they were crazed psychopaths. Turns out, they were psychologically normal. Of course, he uses this to try and say how anyone, even normal people, can do horrific things. :roll:

Or perhaps they never did these horrific things.

You'll notice something similar in Hollywood movies and TV in our time. It's very nearly always the "normal" people who end up being the monsters, killers, torturers, the "bad guys."

This is now a long-running meme now in Western culture, and few are immune from the effects of the drumbeat of this meme. The people to be really scared of are the types of people Norman Rockwell painted in his Americana paintings. They might look normal and wholesome, but watch out! They are really evil. Normal often masks evil. Be afraid! This false belief blasted at people nearly every day creates cognitive dissonance and underpins a lot of our culture and politics, but that is a tangent into unhappy watters.

But as far as I can tell, that "meme" (the normal-seeming people are actually evil) traces to the Holocaust itself, or rather to how the Holocaust was marketed, as you describe it -- carried out by normal people, White-Christians near the very top level of industrial-technological and cultural development on Earth no less.

Reality is always nuanced, and in any war there are always crimes; any large group of people, no matter how well you try to select for good people, will end up having some people more inclined to sadism and who might well (say) kick a prisoner here or there, but it doesn't look like the Germans had more of this than others.

As for the supposedly all-important question of whether Nazi prison guards were "psychologically normal" or not. I have some brief counter-questions:

- What was the gulag survival rate?

- Were gulag guards psychologically normal?

- Why does no one ask? Does no one care?

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: The Psychological Profile of Nazi "Killers"

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 week 4 days ago (Sun Sep 13, 2020 3:56 am)

Richard Evans is a fraud. Nothing he says is true, or taken at face value. Nothing he's ever written is done from an objective standpoint. He doesn't write with the intention to illuminate and come to the truth of the matter, he writes with the modus operandi of an inequitable partisan towards the Third Reich. With no regard for nuance or evaluation that could possibly be perceived in favour of the Third Reich. Due to this, nothing he's written is valid. Nothing he's ever said is valid, he is a poisoned well of disinformation, misinformation that relies on partial truths to come to utter lies. He is the fruit of the poisonous tree.

For example, at the Irving trial he was payed $700,000 by Penguin books to act as a historian and dismiss anything and everything David Irving ever said. Even though David Irving is a much more remarkable historian than Richard Evans could ever hope to be, and knows more about original material than Evans. Evans' subsequent Third Reich trilogy was published by Penguin books; thus his claim to objectivity is impossible. If one can be payed $700,000 to represent a Partisan viewpoint and then published by the same people to historically document that partisan authorship, one who believes in the objectivity of such a person is willingly deluding themselves.

Evans in a new book this year purports to realign the fact of the Hess flight to Scotland: https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=13225&p=96400

Which is an impossibility. The physical evidence of the aircraft that Hess piloted required to be refueled for a second time on another German airfield before being flown to England, thus more than just Rudolf Hess was in on his plan to seek peace in Britain because this required multiple collaborators. And of course, there are dozens of books, not least of all the Hess book by David Irving that put it beyond doubt that Hitler was aware of this peace offensive.

However, Evans cannot stand this idea. He must attempt through a partisan hack job disguised as scholarship to bury this fact in myth. For this could lead to a possible change of opinion of the Third Reich and her alleged aims in the Second World War, to something much more moderate and reasonable. This view, if it were to be too widespread in the public, would destroy some aspect of the negative public perception of the Third Reich. And to Marxists like Evans, this is is unconscionable. It could endanger their Holocaust mythology and over all "Good War" myth.

An example of Evans' documentary manipulation is that of the Schlegelberger document.

This document reads as follows:

"Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."

Source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Schlegelberger/DocItself0342.html
Image

Read this carefully. Any normal person who isn't attempting to commit perjury, as Evans was when he gave his fraudulent "interpretation" of this document, would see how cut and dry it is. What did Evans conclude from it? Well:

In paragraphs 5.155 and 5.161 of Justice Gray's decision, it is noted that Professor Evans expressed the opinion that the subject matter of the "Schlegelberger note" was probably not the Jewish question generally, but rather the narrower issue of mixed marriages between Jews and Gentiles and the children of such marriages. Consequently, this document cannot be used by revisionist historians to prove there was no Nazi policy to exterminate the Jews, because it does not refer to all Jews, only to a small category of Jews.

Paul Grubach, Hitler, the 'Final Solution,' and the Luther Memorandum: A Response to Evans and Longerich https://codoh.com/library/document/hitler-the-final-solution-and-the-luther/en/


Ah yes! How silly of the "Holocaust Deniers" to miss that the Schlegelberger note was OBVIOUSLY referring to Jews of Mixed Aryan-Jewish parentage! It's so obvious even a blind man could see it! (Sarcasm).

This is how Evans' forces the documentary record to conform to his own lies. This document, obviously contains nothing of which Evans' interpretation could be substantiated. Nothing whatsoever. In fact the document itself, even if accepted in the way Evans interprets it would contradict the Holocaust narrative - for if the goal of the Holocaust was to exterminate all Jews, why on earth would the mischling be left to be dealt with until after the war? It makes no logical sense, even less so from the standpoint of Evans. He blatantly lies to everyone in an attempt to push his partisan narrative. In the process he has the gall to claim that it was David Irving who "misinterpreted" documents. Nothing could be further from the truth. Evans is a hack. A disgusting creature, and his books, in my view, deserve to be burned.

Evan's interpretation of this document is further discredited (as if it ever had any merit in the first place) by another document, the Luther Memorandum:

Even now he could say one thing to him, that at the end of this war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was an unalterable decision of the Führer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much.

(Document NG-2586)
See the full Luther Memorandum here: Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (Castle Hill Publishers, 2015), Pp. 269-279


Also see:

Paul Grubach, The "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" Extermination or Ethnic Cleansing? A Review
https://codoh.com/library/document/the-final-solution-of-the-jewish-question-1/en/

and:

Paul Grubach, Holocaust Revisionism vs. Richard Evans
https://codoh.com/library/document/holocaust-revisionism-vs-richard-evans/en/

Hitler's orders are perfectly clear. Referring to Jews in general (thus contradicting Evan's claim), the German dictator stated they will still be around after the war is over (as he had no plans to exterminate them en masse), and they will have to emigrate to a new land outside Europe. This decision was "unalterable," that is, not subject to change. And, this Luther memo gives no indication that there was any change in policy during the time between the enunciation of Hitler's Jewish policy to Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff in November 1941, and the creation of said memo in August 1942.

Nor can one fall back on Longerich's view that the "Schlegelberger memo" is insignificant, for here we have an important August 1942 memorandum underscoring the Hitler orders of the "Schlegelberger note" of March 1942.

Paul Grubach, Hitler, the 'Final Solution,' and the Luther Memorandum: A Response to Evans and Longerich https://codoh.com/library/document/hitler-the-final-solution-and-the-luther/en/


Evans is a fraud. There is no other way of saying it. He is untrustworthy when it comes to representing the documentary record. However, there is more. Because he is also a man with deep Communist sympathies. He is thus a hypocrite too!

Evans you see, wrote a glowing biography of Stalin apologist, and Marxist-Communist, Eric Hobsbawm.

In a wonderful slaying of Evans for his obvious hypocrisy and lack of academic scruples, a blog titled “Useful Stooges” wrote a wonderful article. Quoting David Pryce Jones who wrote in his review of the Evans biography “Eric Hobsbawm: A Life in History makes Evans

"look either a dupe or a fool of the higher sort, in any case earning him a reputation no historian would want to have.”

See: https://archive.vn/hysAj


I recommend you read this article to see how people like Richard Evans use history as nothing more than political propaganda.

The article makes a mince meat mockery of Evans:

If we’re returning now to the subject of Hobsbawm, it’s because another famous historian, Richard J. Evans, FBA, FRSL, FRHistS, FLSW, has published an 800-page biography of him. Evans is best known for his three-volume history of the Third Reich – which has been described as definitive – and for his court testimony defending a writer’s characterization of David Irving as a Holocaust denier. In all his writings on Hitler’s regime, Evans has made it clear that he is not a fan. He sees Nazism for the evil that it is. He does not buy into the notion that, in writing about a Nazi, you can set aside his Nazi beliefs, or contextualize them or relativize them, depicting them as just a minor or incidental part of his personal makeup. You can’t conclude that, his Nazi convictions notwithstanding, the most important thing about him is that he was a devoted husband and father, a good friend and neighbor, a man who loved his pets and was, as the British say, clubbable. No, a Nazi is, first and last, a Nazi. Evans understands that.

Confronted with the case of Hobsbawm and Hobsbawm’s Communism, however, Evans is able to take a totally different approach. In a blistering review of Evans’s book for the June issue of the New Criterion, yet another historian, David Pryce-Jones (who, as it happens, is also an FRSL), laments that Eric Hobsbawm: A Life in History makes Evans “look either a dupe or a fool of the higher sort, in any case earning him a reputation no historian would want to have.” Describing Hobsbawm as “the foremost Communist apologist in the Britain of his day,” Pryce-Jones observes that if Hobsbawm had been a Nazi, “Evans surely would have thrown his doctrine back into his face. Instead, he defends the indefensible with this hagiography.” Although Hobsbawm, after joining the Communist Party as a student at Cambridge, “never deviated from the Party line,” Evans “can still write this utter absurdity: ‘there was no sense in which [Hobsbawm] was an active or committed member of the Party.”

See: https://archive.vn/hysAj


Evans' Third Reich Trilogy has been responded to as well, in part, by revisionists on many of his other falisifications:

The latest effort to combat “denial”, i.e. Holocaust revisionism Part 1.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191121131348/https://revblog.codoh.com/2011/02/the-latest-effort-to-combat-holocaust-revisionism-i-e-denial/

The latest effort to combat “denial”, i.e. Holocaust revisionism Part 2.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191121131341/https://revblog.codoh.com/2011/02/the-latest-effort-to-combat-denial-i-e-holocaust-revisionism/
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 400
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: The Psychological Profile of Nazi "Killers"

Postby HMSendeavour » 1 week 4 days ago (Sun Sep 13, 2020 6:28 am)

I have to make a correction to my previous post.

According to David Irving, Richard Evans was payed between $200-250,000, a quarter of a million. (See: https://archive.org/details/DavidIrvingLipstadtTrialTheTruth_201803). I'm not sure why I was under the impression it was $700,000, but in any case I have remedied my mistake.

Here is the invoice with the payment information regarding the breakdown of payments to the "neutral expert witnesses" :lol: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/payments.html

Also, Irving makes another point about Evans, which is yet another nail in the coffin. That in the trial of Joel Hayward, who wrote a thesis entitled 'The Fate of the Jews in German Hands' that didn't accord with aspects of the Holocaust story (Download: http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/origins/Hayward/Hayward_Thesis.zip). Evans was tasked to destroy Hayward, who was a credentialed academic at the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Long story short that can be independently researched on David Irving's website; Evans, according to Judges and the University of Canterbury, Hayward wasn't guilty of the accusations made by Evans. In fact, Evans was called out for his "partisan" and quite nonobjective activity.

I can't make sense of a similar statement Professor Evans made last week during an exchange with another Kiwi academic: "The distinction between dishonest intent and dishonest effect is a fine one but it was one that the Working Party accepted."

EvansNot only is Professor Evans' logic jumbled but the Working Party did not find me dishonest at all. The party rejected Professor Evans' claims to that effect. The party found my research honest and concluded that my thesis could not be stripped from me and that my masters degree could not be downgraded or otherwise changed.

[...]

I could not afford to employ an expert to counter Professor Evans' report, which was in any event severely criticised as "adversarial", "not objective" and "partisan" by Professor Gerald Orchard, one of New Zealand's most highly regarded lawyers.

The Working Party agreed that Professor Evans was a highly partisan contributor to the proceedings.

Joel Hayward's reply to Richard Evans, see: http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/origins/Hayward/NZHerald250803.html


The report of the Working Party of the University of Canterbury said this of Evans:

4.5 The Working Party received a submission from Professor G. F. Orchard, counsel for Dr Orange, concerning Professor Evans' report. This submission was principally concerned with the standpoint of Professor Evans; it suggested that he acted not as an objective expert but as a partisan advocate. Professor Orchard cited examples in the Evans report of exaggeration, omission, minimisation and misrepresentation. In its detailed consideration of the thesis set out below, the Working Party has considered Professor Orchard's arguments on particular passages.

4.6 The tone of the Evans report is strongly antagonistic and its highly critical treatment is not restricted to Dr Hayward alone. The supervisor and external examiner have both drawn attention to its polemical character, and have in turn subjected Professor Evans to similar criticism. The Working Party believes that such a response, though understandable, is unproductive. It has itself made every effort to discount Professor Evans' tendency to intemperate expression.

REPORT to the Council of The University of Canterbury: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/Evans/NZReportExtract.html
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3558
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: The Psychological Profile of Nazi "Killers"

Postby Hektor » 1 week 3 days ago (Mon Sep 14, 2020 7:17 am)

fireofice wrote:.....
The point of the video is to explain how ordinary democratic societies can end up committing genocide. At about 13:30 in, he cites Richard Evans who says that if you were to ask someone from before the time of the Third Reich which country was most likely to commit a genocide against Jews, they would say France or Russia. Germany would never have occurred to them.

At around 14:50 he goes into some psychological experiments done on the Nazis to determine if they were crazed psychopaths. Turns out, they were psychologically normal. Of course, he uses this to try and say how anyone, even normal people, can do horrific things. :roll:



Or perhaps they never did these horrific things.
.....

That's of course the perfect Alibi for totalitarian Antifascism or even Globalitarianism:
"See, how dangerous those normal people are!"
"We need control measures to prevent them from turning into Nazi monsters".
"Curbing hate speech would be a good start, but we should also regulate what they think and do through institutions and practices we control."

Of course that line of argument would be done more subtle, but its something I already observed for a while. Insinuate wide spread psychological problems by blowing out single examples out of proportion and then propose measures to deal with this dangerous issues.

And yes, it seems that the number of psychological problems has actually increased over the last decades. More people are on medication or suffer from depression and also delusions. Partially this will be a result of the "cultural revolution" that took place in the years after WW2. It seems the "patriarchy" and Western Virtues did have an important function to fulfil. Hell, I guess that's the actual reason they came under attack.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests