The power of indoctrination: my father-in-law's WW2

[Biff_Loman]

It just occurred to me that you people might find this to be of interest.

My wife's father was born in Germany during the War. He was the baby of the family, so his older siblings had the opportunity to be indoctrinated by the Nazis. In the intervening six decades, my father-in-law's family has adhered to the training they received in their childhood from 1) their culture and 2) the Nazis.

My father-in-law is dyslexic, has difficulty reading German and is almost illiterate in English. All this time, he's believed whatever his family has told him. That being the case, let me introduce you to my father-in-law's version of WW2. I'm not fabricating any of this.

1. Hitler was not only the most capable but the most kind leader Europe has ever seen. No other country has ever had such a gifted and benevolent individual at the helm.
2. The holocaust, of course, never happened. Germany has always been a land full of kind people. Hitler never would have committed mass murder, but if he had, who would have carried out his orders? It would be impossible to find a single German who would do such a thing, no matter how hard one looked. Most other countries might have such degenerates - particularly the U.S., which was actually populated by criminals deported from Europe, much like Australia, despite what they tell you - but the Vaterland did not produce people capable of such things.
3. Although Hitler didn't kill Jews, whatever indignities they might have suffered were fully deserved. They were (and are) the rot at the heart of Europe.
4. Hitler's annexation of Austria was the best thing to happen to Austria, ever. In fact, Hitler's annexation of any country was the best thing to happen to that country, ever, because Hitler was better than any European leader who has ever lived.
5. Hitler led Germany in its brilliant but ultimately unsuccessful defense against a militarized Europe that was hell-bent on destroying the German nation. Given that the nations of Europe were about to attack Germany with all their might, Hitler desperately launched a series of pre-emptive attacks against the enemies of the Third Reich. Germany was fortunate that the defensive measures against France were successful, but the efforts to defend Germany against the imminent Soviet invasion failed.

Needless to say, I don't debate him at all. I just let it slide. At times it is difficult to know what to do when he tries to educate me as to how much history has been distorted by the hateful Americans, but I've muddled my way through for six years now.

Edit: I have to add that my father-in-law is the most kind, caring and gentle man you will ever meet. He's an ISFJ and a complete softie. He has a soft touch for animals, especially birds, and loves to go outside when the moon is shining and sing German folk songs to himself. He'd give you the shirt off his back. And he appreciates almost anyone, regardless of culture or background (except for those bastard Jews). It is very, very strange to see one of the most compassionate people I know wax fondly over Hitler's triumphs.

[Nighthawk]

Both my parents were raised in Nazi Germany. My mother ended up a lot like your father-in-law. My father was actually raised in a Nazi school for future leaders from age 10 on. Amazingly, he was one of the most tolerant people I have known. He stated that he knew the Nazis were full of shit ... but what could a teenager do about it at the time. He made a difference when he could as a young sergeant, even saving a group of Jews by releasing them from their guard captors and helping them escape.

On the weekends at our house, his friends would assemble to watch the football game on television. One was a Jew, another Black, another Italian, another Latin. He repeatedly stated that religion or race make no difference in a person ... only the person themselves makes the difference. Strange for the product of a Nazi school.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I also have met former German citizens who also did not believe in the holocaust. Interesting.

[ptGatsby]

I was watching parts of The Truman Show the other day, which reminds me of this.


How much do you think is intentional manipulation as compared to just growing up in a certain environment? Does it take particular methods to create such a world view or can such a thing exist just because you tend to conform to the world around you...?

How many people reject their world view, or at least reconsider it, when information to the contrary is presented?

And what is the primary method of rejecting new information? I sense an overtone of "its all been falsified" as a catch all phrase to discredit new information. And I sense general logical consistency, as far as "They hated Germany (x) so of course they lied about it (y), so I know that Germany (x) is correct and it (y) is false". This seems pretty consistent with what I have seen in my own life.

Hmm, random thoughts that was prompted by this thread... nothing more, nothing less.

[MacGuffin]

None of this surprises me. I knew some people that spent significant time in German-speaking countries and after people they met got to know them they'd try to give them books on how the Holocaust was a myth.

[Claverhouse]

It just occurred to me that you people might find this to be of interest.

It is.



Needless to say, I don't debate him at all. I just let it slide. At times it is difficult to know what to do when he tries to educate me as to how much history has been distorted by the hateful Americans, but I've muddled my way through for six years now.

How does one 'know' which version of any portion of history is the most real ?
We are all conditioned to accept that which the conquerors write as seeming the natural version to believe. After all, the Germans were accused of Katyn at Nurnberg, by soviet judges.

Did bolsheviks hammer epaulettes through officers' shoulders in the Revolution ? I believe so, but I have no way of knowing that it happened and not that it wasn't anti-communist propaganda.

In the end we choose our own beliefs and they like all things are merely faith.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[mgb]

In the end we choose our own beliefs and they like all things are merely faith.



I agree with that.

Although I will say that I imagine a big part of what Biff posted has a lot to do with the German post war tactic of sweeping every bad thing that happened under the rug and pretending it never happened. I'll also qualify that by saying every country does it about something.

[Biff_Loman]

It is.



How does one 'know' which version of any portion of history is the most real ?
We are all conditioned to accept that which the conquerors write as seeming the natural version to believe. After all, the Germans were accused of Katyn at Nurnberg, by soviet judges.

Did bolsheviks hammer epaulettes through officers' shoulders in the Revolution ? I believe so, but I have no way of knowing that it happened and not that it wasn't anti-communist propaganda.

In the end we choose our own beliefs and they like all things are merely faith.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


You are correct to caution me against over-confidence. However, denying the holocaust and the nature of the second world war are very significant deviations from the accepted interpretation of the evidence.

To say whether the Russians or Germans killed the officers at Katyn is one thing; to debate whether there was a massacre or not is another. We can discuss Bolshevik behaviour but I doubt we'll find ourselves arguing as to whether the Bolsheviks really existed. A similar jump is needed to alter Hitler from cruel to kind*, to change the cause of the war from Germany's aggression to Germany's defense, and to delete the Holocaust entirely.

*I understand that this is a simplification.

[floyd]

It is.



How does one 'know' which version of any portion of history is the most real ?
We are all conditioned to accept that which the conquerors write as seeming the natural version to believe. After all, the Germans were accused of Katyn at Nurnberg, by soviet judges.

Did bolsheviks hammer epaulettes through officers' shoulders in the Revolution ? I believe so, but I have no way of knowing that it happened and not that it wasn't anti-communist propaganda.

In the end we choose our own beliefs and they like all things are merely faith.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


so then what do you believe regarding the holocaust?

[Claverhouse]

so then what do you believe regarding the holocaust?

This and that, dear heart. Not, quite obviously, that anything I believe is your business.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[crule81]

Claverhouse is correct in that one should not completely buy the Allied version of WWII. The Nuremburg Trials actually exposed much hypocrisy on the part of the Allies.

For example, most of the defendants were accused of waging "aggressive war". Of course, the Soviet Union invaded both Poland and Finland with no legitimate justification. Similarly, the British fleet was not fishing in Norwegian waters when the Germans beat them too it. The most absurd convictions were those of Doenitz and Raeder for unrestricted submarine warfare when the US and Britain did the same in the Pacific against the Japanese.

I'm not arguing that Germans weren't guilty of atrocities that clearly outweighed those of the allies during the war, but that it was hypocritical for the Allies to pass judgment on the Germans for some of the crimes alleged and proven at Nuremburg.

[Madrigal]

In the end we choose our own beliefs and they like all things are merely faith.

I had a history teacher at University who started the semester saying the same thing. He even said, "I'm very entertained by historians who believe what they are saying." He was an ex-communist militant (from a stalinist party).

[floyd]

This and that, dear heart. Not, quite obviously, that anything I believe is your business.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

your secret is safe with me adolf.

[Claverhouse]

Claverhouse is correct in that one should not completely buy the Allied version of WWII.

Exactly: although I was extending it to all human experience. How do we know anything except those things which we are told ? I'm hoping the Overself has greater understanding than the Underself which is our necessary current existence, but we are all dependent on which facts we are fed, in sequence, and conflicting, and how we decide internally which to form into a world-picture.

I've mentioned here a small book of Scottish Ballads: this day I took it to read on the bus and my eye was caught by a line in the commentary on 'The Bonnie Earl of Murray', where James, Earl of Murrey or Moray was murdered by the Gordons.


The Earl of Huntly, head of the powerful family of Gordon, had chanced to have some feudal differences with the Earl of Murrey, in the course of which John Gordon, a brother of Gordon of Cluny, was killed by a shot from Murray's castle of Darnaway. This was enough to make the two families irreconcilable enemies, even if they had been otherwise on friendly terms. About 1591-2, an accusation was brought against Murrey for having given some countenance, or assistance, to Stewart, Earl of Bothwell, in a recent treasonable exploit. King James, without recollecting, perhaps, the hostility between the two earls, sent Huntly with a commission to bring the Earl of Murray to his presence. etc.

Now, like other history this is all far beyond us, and no-one now can say which party, if either, was more in the right than the other. Yet it was the line: King James, without recollecting, perhaps, the hostility between the two earls, which haunts me. James the I & VI was perhaps the wisest and toughest king ever to rule Scotland alone. He was not in the habit of doing things lightly. Could I be justified in supposing...? Only Jamie knew; and perhaps not even he...


Claverhouse :ph34r:


He was a braw gallant,
And he rade at the ring;
And the bonnie Earl o' Murray,
Oh ! he micht have been a king.

He was a braw gallant,
And he rade at the gluve;
And the bonnie Earl o' Murray,
Oh ! he was the Queen's luve !

[Claverhouse]

your secret is safe with me adolf.

If you have come to the conclusion that I have any nazi sympathies then you are considerably stupider than I believe. The nazis first victims were the monarchist plotters in 1933.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[eyebyte_atWork]

If you have come to the conclusion that I have any nazi sympathies then you are considerably stupider than I believe. The nazis first victims were the monarchist plotters in 1933.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


I think he has you confused with Swift.


*Sorry if I went over board*

[Zephyrus055]

I think the holocaust happened, but I view it with emotional neutrality. Most people bring in extremely negative emotions with it, and I find them laughable and subjective.

It happened. So what? The jewish people don't inherently deserve an Israeli state, holocaust museums, recognition as the chosen ones, or a regular flow of money because of it.

I don't care what happened to someone. I am not going to feel guilt and make ammends. My own personal excellence and self interest are all that matter.

Additionally, I agree that our history and world views are largely a product of social conditioning. I have made it my priority to observe and develop my own theories when my empirical evidence contradicts the popular theories. While I generally don't care about studying history, I am particularly interested in the social sciences like political science, which are totally unscientific/subjective, because getting it right is beneficial for advancing my own self interest.

When it comes to people and views, I must admit that people are generally very stubborn with them once they have them. Overt ridicule and abuse definitely does not work with these people. It only makes them believe ever more strongly in them and become less receptive to your efforts. When reconditioning these sick minds, I simply guide them by planting a few ideas over a lengthly period of time. I never argue. I only listen and give them something to think about. You'd be surprised how far these tactics go. The subject feels like they are important, and their new opinions a product of their own ingenuity. Their egos remain in tact and you get what you want by changing their minds.

This is something important to human nature. Humans want to feel important and special. Winning an arguement will not change many people's minds, only maybe a NT's. Covertly guiding them will win the day. It's called psychological warfare, and it's effectively deployed by our own media and academic networks too actually.

[sbw]

Humans want to feel important and special.

is this why most of them are mundane and insignificant?

Scott

[Zephyrus055]

is this why most of them are mundane and insignificant?

Scott
Yep.

[cjs55]

In 50 years, when the consensus opinion is vastly different than it is now on many issues, it will be funny to see the average person from this generation just as lost and clueless to the common ideology as the average WW2 vet is today.

It's nice to be relatively immune to such things and get to just observe as things change.

[SensEye]

In 50 years, when the consensus opinion is vastly different than it is now on many issues, it will be funny to see the average person from this generation just as lost and clueless to the common ideology as the average WW2 vet is today.
I'm fairly confident I will NOT view any politician from my lifetime as a great leader.

[Zephyrus055]

I'm fairly confident I will NOT view any politician from my lifetime as a great leader.

I wouldn't be surprised if an ENTJ seized absolute power in your lifetime.

[cjs55]

This is simply because politics have become so degenerate in these final stages of democracy. Very few people have faith in politicians any more from our generation, even the sheep, which is impressive.

However, my statement still applies, it's just not precisely related to the thread subject (just tangentially)

[Zephyrus055]

This is simply because politics have become so degenerate in these final stages of democracy. Very few people have faith in politicians any more from our generation, even the sheep, which is impressive.

However, my statement still applies, it's just not precisely related to the thread subject (just tangentially)
Which is why I wouldn't be surprised if I had an ENTJ for an Emperor within the next few decades.

[Braggi]

1. Hitler was not only the most capable but the most kind leader Europe has ever seen. No other country has ever had such a gifted and benevolent individual at the helm.

for this alone, i LOVE your father-in-law.

[MacGuffin]

for this alone, i LOVE your father-in-law.The least surprising post in this thread yet.

[Biff_Loman]

Hardy har har, Richard.

[Totenkopf]

I recall an encounter I had with a highly educated management consultant from Germany. He steadfastly maintained that Hitler was no worse a historical figure than Napoleon. I thought he was trying to bait me, but it turns out he was serious!

[Biff_Loman]

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know precisely why Hitler was worse than Napoleon. I have my own ideas, but I'd like to hear yours.

[Braggi]

who was responsible for a higher kill count?

[Nighthawk]

Aside from Hitler, don't underestimate the roles of the people below him in the Nazi apparatus. Brutal sociopaths like Himmler, Kaltenbrunner, Frank, and Globocnik. Even worse were the highly intelligent sociopaths like Heydrich. Hitler may have endorsed the final solution, but these guys carried it out with ruthless efficiency.

[Zephyrus055]

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know precisely why Hitler was worse than Napoleon. I have my own ideas, but I'd like to hear yours.
Napoleon was an ENTJ who pushed forward reason and life to the European continent, while Hitler was an angry/emotional INFP who brought ignorance and death to the European continent and the world.

Napoleon was a living god, and a testament to the divinity of the NT temperament.

Hitler was a demonic beast!

[wildcat]

I agree with that.

Although I will say that I imagine a big part of what Biff posted has a lot to do with the German post war tactic of sweeping every bad thing that happened under the rug and pretending it never happened. I'll also qualify that by saying every country does it about something.
Incorrect! False!

I am of German extraction and also lived in Germany after the war.

[charred_heart]

Napoleon was a living god, and a testament to the divinity of the NT temperament.
I am beginning to suspect you might be a dangerous individual, Imperator055

[Biff_Loman]

Napoleon was an ENTJ who pushed forward reason and life to the European continent, while Hitler was an angry/emotional INFP who brought ignorance and death to the European continent and the world.

Well, yes. Although: I would avoid trying to type Hitler. I'm not sure how much biographical work you've read about the man, but he seems like a deeply conflicted individual. D00d had issues.


Napoleon was a living god, and a testament to the divinity of the NT temperament.

Is this facetious?


Hitler was a demonic beast!

I'll grant you that.

[Zephyrus055]

Well, yes. Although: I would avoid trying to type Hitler. I'm not sure how much biographical work you've read about the man, but he seems like a deeply conflicted individual. D00d had issues.
Fair enough. In addition to Hitler's type, it would be reasonable to assume that he had one or many psychological problems.


Is this facetious?
Yep.


I'll grant you that.
:)

[Zephyrus055]

I am beginning to suspect you might be a dangerous individual, Imperator055
Selfishness
Ruthlessness
Strategy

Well if you consider my above core virtues to be dangerous, then yes I am dangerous.

[wildcat]

post 7:

Pentagon is now looking for talented and imaginative scribents to engage in war propaganda. They do not care if you are a Canadian or what. Why not try your luck there. Write to them and tell them that what you lack in talent you make up in clap-trap.

[charred_heart]

Selfishness
Ruthlessness
Strategy

Well if you consider my above core virtues to be dangerous, then yes I am dangerous.
add Napoleon worship?
yes, you're very dangerous!:shock: :shock:

[Zephyrus055]

add Napoleon worship?
yes, you're very dangerous!:shock: :shock:
Ok, I'm dangerous then.

Btw, I don't worship Napoleon - I'm an atheist. I do, however, highly revere him.

[charred_heart]

Ok, I'm dangerous then.

Btw, I don't worship Napoleon - I'm an atheist. I do, however, highly revere him.
I guess even an atheist needs someone to look up to once in a while ;)

...I think I might get assasinated tonight:laser: