Quote Originally Posted by Bronzeage View Post
Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

No, I'm saying that guilt is not a black or white proposition. It's all shades of grey. And above all, impossible to say who is more complicit than anybody else. That's what's so insidious about totalitarianism. It corrupts people. It can make good people do evil things.
No. It is possible to say who is more complicit than others.

The statement that such a thing is impossible can quickly be shown to be absurd by pointing out that Adolf Hitler was more complicit in the deaths of Jews in Poland, than I am.
Neither you nor Hitler belong to the group we call Poles suffering under the Nazi occupation. So those two individuals are not relevant to the question.

A big problem with affixing guilt to fascists is that many fascists have noble motives. They want fairness, justice, more law and order, more freedom and all the other stuff people usually say they want. And they think fascism is the best method by which to reach it. So what happens when Germany invades? Polish fascists are now in a bind. By virtue of being fascists they're already seen as complicit of the invasion by the other Poles. So they're, by the rest of society, pushed towards collaboration. And since there's loads of material benefits involved, they have little reason to fight the urge. And then after liberation we forget how the rest of society pushed them towards collaboration. We treat them like individuals who acted on their own accord. It ignores human psychology and how we make decisions.

The above is what happened to Quisling. After the Russian revolution he spent a lot of time in Russia, and decided that communism was the biggest threat to western civilisation at that time. Whatever stopped the spread of communism would have his support. He decided that the political party he was a prominent member of didn't take this threat seriously enough. So he left it and created the Norwegian fascist party. During WW2 he was very pro Hitler because nobody took a harder hard-line against communism than Hitler. It was a bunch of small steps which at some point placed him in a position where collaboration with the Nazis was his only viable option.

The context within which we find ourselves matter. We all want status, health, love and wealth. Every society has a hierarchy. Those in a comfortable position in that hierarchy love passing judgement on the moral failings of those who commit crimes to climb in the hierarchy. Without reflecting on that it's them who are keeping those lower on the totem pole, and creating the context which pushes these people towards committing the crimes, to begin with. That's what Karl Marx realised. And Nietzsche. It's fundamental human psychological mechanics you need to accept understand to make sense of the world. How we chose to deal with them is another matter. Which is why Marx and Nietzsche has two diametrically different solutions to the same basic problem.

The senior positions of the Nazi party was full of the lower middle class. People who stared in envy at those socially superior and they loved going there. Goebels loved spending time with upper class Jews and admired them. He wrote it in his diary. He liked that people that fancy was now treating him like a social superior. He knew he wasn't really their social superior. He didn't have the education or breeding. He also wrote that in his diary.