“MAGA Teens Are Modern Day Hitlerjugend”: Controversial Mississippi Professor Renews Attacks Shortly After Gaining Tenure

University of Mississippi law professor James Thomas has previously caused a stir with intemperate comments about how conservative senators like Ted Cruz “don’t deserve your civility” and how people should attack them in public. Thomas, who was recently given tenure over opposition at the school, is back in the news by declaring that “MAGA teens are modern day Hitlerjugend [Hitler Youth]. Got a uniform and everything.”

Thomas identifies himself as “Husband. Father. Sociologist. Sower of Discourse. Slayer of Nazis. Author of books. Tenured (with dissent) since 2019.”

His tenure was indeed controversial. Thomas dew considerable ire with his comments following the protests against Cruz at a restaurant, which I criticized in the past. Thomas celebrated the action and encouraged others to be even more aggressive: “don’t just interrupt a Senator’s meal, y’all. Put your whole damn fingers in their salads. Take their [appetizers] and distribute them to the other diners. Bring boxes and take their food home with you on the way out. They don’t deserve your civility.”

The school recommended Thomas for tenure but the decision was debated by the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning.  A divided board upheld the recommendation of the school. In my view, it was the correct decision. There is no evidence that Thomas’ intolerant and reckless comments on social media have been manifest in his conduct as an academic or teacher. It is certainly a matter of concern since the school likely has a significant number of students that Thomas considers Hitler youth. Yet, the school reviewed his record and not incident has been reported that show that Thomas’ extreme views on social media have influenced his teaching or treatment of students.

After the tenure vote, Thomas is back again spewing intolerant and offensive remarks on social media.

JT @Insurgent_Prof

MAGA teens are modern day Hitlerjugend. Got a uniform and everything.110:42 AM – Jan 23, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacySee JT ‘s other Tweets

Thomas reaffirmed his earlier screed:


I know little about Thomas or his background. What little interest I had in that background evaporated with his latest tweet. However, his tenure vote highlights an ongoing concern for those of us in the free speech community. I support the right of faculty — and all people — to be able to espouse controversial views (even offensive views) in their private time so long as those views do not interfere with their employment.

As we have previously discussed (including a story involving an Oregon professor), there remains an uncertain line in what language is protected for teachers in their private lives. The incident also raises what some faculty have complained is a double or at least uncertain standard. We have previously discussed controversies at the University of California and Boston University, where there have been criticism of such a double standard, even in the face of criminal conduct. There were also such incident at the University of London involving Bahar Mustafa as well as one involving a University of Pennsylvania professor. Some intolerant statements against students are deemed free speech while others are deemed hate speech. There is a lack of consistency in these actions which turn on the specific groups left aggrieved by out-of-school comments.

201 thoughts on ““MAGA Teens Are Modern Day Hitlerjugend”: Controversial Mississippi Professor Renews Attacks Shortly After Gaining Tenure”

  1. For those not paying attention: Hitler.. err I mean Trump just had a Hitler Youth Rally today complete with Lügenpresse, vilifying his political opposition, misogyny, claims that the kids were victims and he was a victim. All of you that support Trump are the same that supported Hitler. <- That's a fact.

      1. It seems the symptoms of TDS are the same as alcoholic dementia. Maybe James is using the home brew Jim Beam as seen in the Dominican Republic.

    1. “All of you that support Trump are the same that supported Hitler. <- That's a fact."

      The only point of clarity that emerged from your mercifully short take (thank you for that, most of your fellow demented loons on this blog go on at unbearably tedious length) is that you don't understand the meaning of the word "fact." The fact is, most of the people who support trumpy weren't around for Hitler.

  2. When we tally up the “terrorist” and “extremist” attacks we won’t see this type of attack enterring into the numbers even though this is just one of many such attacks. (Note: this is a smaller sect of religious Jews)
    —-
    Victim of Anti-Semitic Hate Crime Attributed Attack to Hatred of Trump

    Armin Rosen at the Tablet has done a deep and important dive into the rise in anti-Semitic attacks in New York. The attacks predictably have nothing to do with the left’s usual obsession with right-wing extremism.

    And one response jumped out at me.

    Attitudes toward the rise in violent anti-Semitic attacks are somewhat different further south, in Crown Heights and Borough Park.

    Menachem Moskowitz, a 52-year-old who was nearly strangled to death when a man attacked him outside of his synagogue in Crown Heights on a Shabbat afternoon in early 2018, screaming that the Jews stole his house, speculated that his community was being blamed for the Trump presidency.

    (“When I was in the headlock I started to say Shema Yisrael,” Moskowitz recalls. “I thought that was it.”)

    Others suggested that demonization of Israel has created a more hateful and permissive atmosphere—the irony being that the Satmar community in Williamsburg has a complex and generally negative relationship with Zionism, rejecting the legitimacy of the idea of Israel as a “Jewish state.”

    Orthodox Jews in New York tend to vote Republican in national elections.

    One more reason for the Left to ignore these attacks.

      1. Congratulations, but White Supremacy means White Supremacy. It doesn’t tell which side of the aisle the White Supremicist leans to. Richard Spencer is a well known White Supremecist. He wants national health insurance. Is that a right wing or a left wing desire? (It’s left wing as are his socialistic ideas) There are many such attacks like the one I posted above happening on a regular basis. Are they included in your calculations of “extremism”? Of course not.

        1. “…After Donald Trump was elected President, Spencer urged his supporters to “party like it’s 1933,” a reference to the year in which Hitler came to power in Germany.[19] In the weeks following the election, at a National Policy Institute conference, Spencer quoted Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews, and he also used the German term Lügenpresse (“lying press”) to vilify journalists.[9] Later, in response to Spencer’s cry “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”, a number of his supporters gave the Nazi salute and chanted in a similar fashion to the Sieg Heil chant used at the Nazis’ Nuremberg rallies.[20][21] Spencer later called Trump’s election “the victory of will”, a phrase evoking the title of Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will (1935), a Nazi-era propaganda film.[9]…”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer

          1. Firstly there are a lot better sources than Wikipedia which generally leans left, but that doesn’t matter. Nothing you said indicates Spencer is on the right. In fact you demonstrate his leftist thinking since the Nazi’s represented the National Socialist movement and was born out of the communist movement. You wish to label the Spencer types as right wing despite the programs they support such as national health insurance and despite his socialist ideas.

            I find it difficult to classify people because within a group there are differences. For instance in Nazi Germany Nazi’s were born from the socialists as were the fascists in Mousilini’s Italy. Groups splinter and violent groups when they splinter can even kill one another. It is much easier to classify people based on their primary beliefs. Socialists increased government. Socialists nationalizing important aspects of industry such as healthcare which represents 18% of the economy. We can look at what the left wants with regard to other segments of the economy and it is more socialism not less.

            Look at your socialist friend Bernie Sanders. He was paying less than the $15 he proposed. When he acceded to paying $15 he moved in direction of firing some employees. The economics didn’t work.

            1. Thanks for that load of crap Alan.

              Richard Spencer is a Trumpster, like you and most on the board. You’re not conservative either. Just a cultist.

              1. I don’t know who Richard Spencer supported and neither do you. However, with all the white hate and guilt on the left it would not be surprising for a white nationalist socialist supporting someone who doesn’t have the left wing idea of white guilt.

                I’m more of a classical liberal in the fashion of Milton Friedman and I believe in the Constitution. Trump is upholding the Constitution something Democrats would like to tear up.

                1. Here’s who Richard Spencer supported – the guy Allan likes to pretend is a leftist:

                  “…After Donald Trump was elected President, Spencer urged his supporters to “party like it’s 1933,” a reference to the year in which Hitler came to power in Germany.[19] In the weeks following the election, at a National Policy Institute conference, Spencer quoted Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews, and he also used the German term Lügenpresse (“lying press”) to vilify journalists.[9] Later, in response to Spencer’s cry “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”, a number of his supporters gave the Nazi salute and chanted in a similar fashion to the Sieg Heil chant used at the Nazis’ Nuremberg rallies.[20][21] Spencer later called Trump’s election “the victory of will”, a phrase evoking the title of Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will (1935), a Nazi-era propaganda film.[9]…”

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer

                  1. Anonymous1 has run out of words so he quoted Wikipedia. Then he ran out of things to copy so he recopied Wikipedia instead of responding to my answer to his first wikipedia posting.

                    I’ll repeat my first answer to this article:

                    Firstly there are a lot better sources than Wikipedia which generally leans left, but that doesn’t matter. Nothing you said indicates Spencer is on the right. In fact you demonstrate his leftist thinking since the Nazi’s represented the National Socialist movement and was born out of the communist movement. You wish to label the Spencer types as right wing despite the programs they support such as national health insurance and despite his socialist ideas.

                    I find it difficult to classify people because within a group there are differences. For instance in Nazi Germany Nazi’s were born from the socialists as were the fascists in Mousilini’s Italy. Groups splinter and violent groups when they splinter can even kill one another. It is much easier to classify people based on their primary beliefs. Socialists increased government. Socialists nationalizing important aspects of industry such as healthcare which represents 18% of the economy. We can look at what the left wants with regard to other segments of the economy and it is more socialism not less.

                    Look at your socialist friend Bernie Sanders. He was paying less than the $15 he proposed. When he acceded to paying $15 he moved in direction of firing some employees. The economics didn’t work.

                    1. I think Allan overlooked this:

                      Here’s who Richard Spencer supported – the guy Allan likes to pretend is a leftist:

                      “…After Donald Trump was elected President, Spencer urged his supporters to “party like it’s 1933,” a reference to the year in which Hitler came to power in Germany.[19] In the weeks following the election, at a National Policy Institute conference, Spencer quoted Nazi propaganda and denounced Jews, and he also used the German term Lügenpresse (“lying press”) to vilify journalists.[9] Later, in response to Spencer’s cry “Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”, a number of his supporters gave the Nazi salute and chanted in a similar fashion to the Sieg Heil chant used at the Nazis’ Nuremberg rallies.[20][21] Spencer later called Trump’s election “the victory of will”, a phrase evoking the title of Leni Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will (1935), a Nazi-era propaganda film.[9]…”

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer

                    2. “I think Allan overlooked this:”

                      Anon, when you have to repeat a quote for a third time from Wikipedia without responding to the other’s replies one knows you have lost and are unable to argue a position. It’s a stupid thing to do.

                      Spencer had a choice. White guilt on the left where caucasians were being placed into an inferior position due to the leftist acceptance of intersectionality and the left’s promotion of reparations, among other things. If one was a White Nationalist where would he stand? Certainly not with the group that wishes to demote him to a second class citizen.

                      Does that change Spencer’s support for socialism? No.Support for national health insurance? No. It tells you that though he might agree more with the socialists his primary concern is White Nationalism and that he can fight against non socialist ideas at a later day. Though for political reasons you might want to pin the racist label on Trump, it simply isn’t true. He isn’t a racist but you are a race baiter.

                  2. Spencer likes Democrat candidate for POTUS Andrew Yang.

                    I won’t hold that against Yang, I like him too.
                    I won’t hold it against Richard, either, LOL

                    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/4chan-vs-the-yang-gang

                    right and left are often meaningless distinctions in American politics because everyone is pretty much right in the middle, even th socalled extremists are not that extreme, compared to what one might find in other nations

              2. It doesn’t seem to occur to JanF that opinions about medical care finance and opinions about racial / national identity might be orthagonal to each other sociologically and that one doesn’t logically entail the other.

                This is not that difficult.

        2. How can one want national healthcare for everyone and be intolerant of the minorities? Do you have a credible link for this claim? Or is this just more lies and smears by fascist outlets trying to undermine the opposition? That happens a lot these days.

          1. James, Richard Spencer has said a lot of things. Perhaps you are not too aware of him. You should read about him on the Internet.

            “How can one want national healthcare for everyone and be intolerant of the minorities?”

            Pure logic provides the answer without searching. Spencer is not stupid though he is someone to avoid like the plague. His rhetoric tells us he wants a totally white nation. His answers get rid of non whites and Jews. Send them away or break up the states to exclude them seems to be two ways he would consider.

  3. Professor,
    Concerning your statement that all people should be able to espouse controversial views, even offensive ones, and send them out on social media, if done during their “private time”.
    Aren’t many or most, of Trump’s tweets sent-out in the middle of the night, during his “private time”?
    😉

  4. No evidence that Thomas’ extreme views put on social media have influenced his treatment of his students??
    Common sense would say that of course his views on social media influence his students. I’m sure many of them, if conservative, don’t dare express their honest views in class for fear of retaliation.
    And he expresses his views in such an extremely mean-spirited way, hoping to shut down any opposing views from his students. What a pathetic sissy.

    1. As opposed to Trump investigating the investigators… my that’s a highly hypocritical stance you are taking.

      1. Yeah, there’s nothing the least bit interesting about McCabe, Sztrok, Page, and Brennan running informants against the political opposition and misleading the FISA court into allowing the campaign to be wiretapped. And Mueller and Weismann spending over a year trying to contrive an obstruction-of-justice charge against the president (for obstructing their obstruction investigation) is a matter of no interest whatsoever.

  5. Talk About Rash Statements!

    TRUMP CLAIMS HE COULD WIN AFGHANISTAN WITHIN A WEEK

    If militaristic words could win wars, President Trump would be one of the greatest conquerors in history — a combination of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Napoleon — rather than the hedonist who cited bone spurs to avoid service in Vietnam. He was at it again on Monday. During a White House meeting with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, Trump said: “If we wanted to fight a war in Afghanistan and win it, I could win that war in a week. I just don’t want to kill 10 million people. Does that make sense to you? I don’t want to kill 10 million people. I have plans on Afghanistan that, if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the Earth. It would be gone. It would be over in — literally, in 10 days. And I don’t want to do — I don’t want to go that route.”

    Khan’s response in the official White House transcript is priceless: “Mm-hmm.” Afghanistan’s president, Ashraf Ghani, immediately asked for “clarification.” I doubt the White House will have anything useful to say, but I’m happy to help.

    Trump is channeling his inner Curtis LeMay. This was the Air Force general, and later George Wallace’s running mate, who is said to have proposed ending the Vietnam War by bombing the North Vietnamese “back into the Stone Age.” It has been folk wisdom ever since, among folks who know nothing of counterinsurgency, that the United States can always use airpower to win wars and that only a misplaced liberal humanitarianism prevents it from doing so.

    This ignores the reality that, as the New York Times notes, “America dropped three times more ordnance over Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia than all sides did during World War II” — and yet we still lost the war. Guerrillas, such as the Viet Cong or the Taliban, don’t have factories or tank formations that can be targeted from the air. Their strength is that they blend into the civilian population. So if you drop a lot of bombs, you wind up killing a lot of innocent people — and not winning the war. In Afghanistan, the Taliban end strength is usually estimated at 20,000 to 30,000 fighters. If you kill 10 million Afghans, you wind up killing 9,970,000 innocent people — and thus committing a war crime — without defeating the Taliban.

    Edited from: “Why Trump Is Flattering Pakistan – And Threatening To Annihilate Afghanistan”.

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. Regarding Above:

      Sure, any war is winnable if you’re willing to fling nukes around. But obviously that option has severe limitations in the real world. But then Donald Trump isn’t dwelling in the real world.

    2. obviously this was a stupid remark.

      alexander the great had problems in afhanistan too. typical guerilla warfare stuff. his solution was pay off the tribal chieftains, declare victory, take a hot wife named Roxanne, and move on to war in India

      I think the British had similar problems and looked into his playbook for ideas

      1. Afghanistan is the ‘graveyard of empires’. Luckily we never got overly involved. But I’m sure we’ve dropped a trillion if not more.

        1. it is indeed called that, but so far it has not been for the US. 2372 deaths in Afghanistan. Vietnam was like 54K or so right? huge difference in casualties.

          I think Iran would be a different situation. We may yet see a limited military conflict. targeted bombing campaign maybe? naval reprisals? not sure. but I don’t think that would entail invasion. untenable.

          1. Kurtz, another opinion I just got:

            Eat Iran’s Lunch Before They Have Us for Dinner
            by Tawfik Hamid
            July 23, 2019 at 4:00 am

            https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/14572/eat-irans-lunch

            Diplomatic efforts notwithstanding, the free world must realize that the threat posed by a nuclear Iran would be different from any other nation obtaining such weapons.

            At the very least, Iran, once it had both nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them, would not even have to use them: the threat to do so would be sufficient to blackmail other countries into doing whatever it asked. If it wanted to control the oilfields of Saudi Arabia or its holy cities, Mecca and Medina, how could Saudi Arabia resist?… What about the tempting oil fields of Abu Dhabi or Kuwait?

            Since its revolution in 1979, Iran, often through its proxies such as Hezbollah, has dedicated its resources to expansion and terrorism — not only in Yemen, but also in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and by funding Hamas in the Gaza Strip — to create a geographical arc from Iran to the Mediterranean. Iran has also for years been expanding into South America, particularly Venezuela.

            Body of essay at Gatestone site

      2. “Talk About Rash Statements! TRUMP CLAIMS HE COULD WIN AFGHANISTAN WITHIN A WEEK”

        Kurtz, Peter is a warmonger. Trump was a bit hyperbolic to make a point that is essentially true. But what Peter left out was the rest of his sentence. He didn’t want to kill millions of people because it didn’t make sense. It’s good to let your enemies know your power so they don’t test you and get you into a war, but Peter hasn’t read his history. Trump wants us out of a police action that he had nothing to do with and wishes to do it without warfare while protecting American interests. I think that is a pretty good plan.

        Of course Obama made us weak and made us look weak. That is a recipie for war, maybe not on his watch, but down the road. I note things haven’t changed much since the ending years of GWB in Afaganistan. Obama had 8 years and did nothing except to kick the can down the road.

        1. i think they achieved the essential policy objective in Afghanistan which was a) to displace Al Queda terror training safe areas, and b) to secure airstrips and logistics hubs in Afghanistan by taking and securing Kabul and adjacent areas.

          Taliban never lost their foothold on the countryside as far as i know. It is not really the enemy outside the Kabul perimeter, just inside of it. But we can’t really let them take the whole country back over because they will insist on us pulling out our strategic resources. So it goes sidways.

          But stalemate is essentially an acceptable status quo for us in Afghanistan, as one small but important place in the global defensive posture. But you can’t really say that. Maybe Trump could I guess, but not me, I’m not a good communicator like him.

          A certain number of troops are going to get killed. It’s part of the contract to take risks. You have to be sanguine about that and most milpers I Know have always been realistic about it.

          1. We found out during the Bush years that Afghanistan could not offer the usual type of victory. For 8 years Obama did nothing but tread water. Trump hopefully will get us out of the police action we presently have there. I am not sure what Pakistan’s role will be in the solution considering the fact that this is a regional issue.

            Peter’s response was to paraphrase what Trump said out of context which is the equivalent of lying and quite stupid.

              1. Did you forget about the Taliban? Obama didn’t kill anyone, American forces did but he might have caused the killing of the doctor that helped lead us to OBL. He also opened his mouth too fast after the operation was completed and I think he let him slip away another time. Obama was a lousy President and you don’t know what you are talking about..

                    1. That’s funny.

                      Allan starts them.

                      I end them.

                      Allan squirms. He knows it’s true.

                    2. “Allan squirms.”

                      You can believe what you wish but most of what you believe isn’t true. The really sad part is you are not even original and have to copy what I just wrote to you. You continue to embarrass yourself along with demonstrating that you have no integrity.

                    3. Again, Alan, you can ‘win’ a war if you’re willing to fling nukes like no tomorrow. But because Trump isn’t willing to go that route doesn’t make him ‘honorable’. It means he knows it’s not realistic.

                      You don’t get bonus points for realizing millions of deaths is unacceptable. It’s not like they give you a Noble Prize for ‘sparing millions of lives’. One would have to be terribly warped grading presidents on that curve.

                      In other words Trump was just blurting an utterly ridiculous assertion. And he does that all the time.

                    4. Peter, you make all sorts of inane comments. This comment of yours is so tortured it’s hard to respond to. For 8 years Obama tread water in Afghanistan. That is something Trump decided could not be tolerated and I think the American people agree. Almost 2 decades of war without getting anywhere doesn’t serve the American people.

                      Trump does not believe in a lot of the foreign intervention the US has been involved in. Take Libya, I think he believes we should have kept our fingers out and we would have been better off. Apparently you are a war monger and supported Hillay’s foolish warlike tendencies. Trump provided the options that most people recognize. We could win the war at the cost of millions of Afghani lives. That is the way the socialists of the 20th century acted and over 100 million were killed outside of WW2. He wanted to make it clear that though some might think that was an option, it wasn’t an option for him. We could also probably win the war without nukes but that requires more manpower than it is worth and more years of fighting.

                      You wish to demean the President by saying “It’s not like they give you a Noble Prize for ‘sparing millions of lives’. “. But you seem to forget they gave Obama the Noble Peace Prize for doing nothing. Trump is acting and wishes to end the war. I think that is a good thing.

                    5. Since he’s been corrected here, Allan is lying.

                      Obama killed OBL, whose refuge in Afghanistan triggered our military action there.

                    6. Anonymous1, you are again backpeddling and being non-responsive. I responded 3 times to a Wikipedia article that was poorly written. I have told you what Richard Spencer has said and you can’t stand the fact that he has socialist ideas. You are a foolish and arrogant person something we learned day one when you enterred the debate as Jan F.

                      Quote anything I said and then show us where it is wrong. You can’t, but I can do the opposite. That is the problem with your low intellectual type of thinking. You think saying you won is the equivalent of winning, but this isn’t a game of winning or losing rather it is a blog where ideas are thrown around. That is not your interest. Your sole interest is in proving something that doesn’t exist except in your mind.

                1. Allan has said twice that Obama only treaded water in Afghanistan, failing to note he killed OBL, who’s refuge in Afghanistan was our original reason for invading. He’s been corrected once on this and by restating it a second time is lying.

                  Allan said Richard Spencer is a leftist. After being corrected 3 times with proof showing Spencer is a Trump supporter, just like Allan and some other yoyo’s on this board, his repeating that falsehood is also a lie.

                  1. “Allan has said twice that Obama only treaded water in Afghanistan, failing to note he killed OBL.”

                    After OBL was killed did we leave Afghanistan? No. The thin veneer of intellect anonymous1 wishes to demonstrate wore thin a long time ago if it ever existed.

                    As far as Spencer’s support your brain works like an on off switch. Your are going to be shot by person A but you hate person B. Who do you support? B is the only rational answer. Does that mean you like person B? No. It means you don’t want to be killed by person A. You are an absolute idiot and irrational to boot..

  6. Wait. Comments may be “intemperate” but stealing the Constitution, Bill of Rights, freedoms, rights, privileges and immunities from Americans is not? Who cares about comments? Americans have lost their entire republic to the communist welfare state.

    The entire American welfare state is unconstitutional. Congress cannot tax for “…individual welfare…” or regulate anything other than “…commerce among the several States.” Private property means Congress cannot tell anyone, anywhere or anytime what to do with their private property – no rent control, no dictatorship regarding whom to sell or rent to – nothing. Private property means private property not public property.

    Who gives a —- about a few more inane comments.

  7. The rabid froth of ‘academics’ such as Mr. Thomas in this article and the instructor upset over the MAGA hat worn in class that Mr. Turley described in a previous blogpost illustrate the emptiness of their arguments. Trump is not Hitler, ICE detention centers are not concentration camps, and ‘white privilege’ has been replaced by ‘non-white privilege’.

  8. For those who believe that ‘it can’t happen here’:

    “What the last Nuremberg prosecutor alive wants the world to know”

    https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/what-the-last-nuremberg-prosecutor-alive-ben-ferencz-wants-the-world-to-know-60-minutes-2019-06-30/

    Excerpts:

    War makes murderers out of otherwise decent people. All wars, and all decent people.

    Ben Ferencz in court: The charges we have brought accuse the defendants of having committed crimes against humanity.

    The Nuremberg trials after World War II were historic — the first international war crimes tribunals ever held. Hitler’s top lieutenants were prosecuted first. Then a series of subsequent trials were mounted against other Nazi leaders, including 22 SS officers responsible for killing more than a million people — not in concentration camps — but in towns and villages across Eastern Europe. They would never have been brought to justice were it not for Ben Ferencz.

    1. Consider, too, the book Ordinary Men.

      They were not even SS officers.

      Not many people rise to be a Josef Schultz.

      1. The thesis of the book has been criticized. The men of the reserve police battallion were not a random selection.

          1. Agreed. I’ve seen what “ordinary” men and women will do in service to what they believe to be a just cause, and when asked by those in a position of authority — even when it’s wrong.

            As for those in the book ‘Ordinary Men’:

            “They included men who, before the war, had been professional policemen as well as businessmen, dockworkers, truck drivers, construction workers, machine operators, waiters, druggists and teachers. Only a minority were members of the Nazi Party, and only a few belonged to the SS. During their stay in Poland they participated in the shootings, or the transport to the Treblinka gas chambers, of at least 83,000 Jews.” – from the following article

            Excerpt from article, linked below:

            In his finely focused and stunningly powerful book, “Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland,” Christopher R. Browning tells us about such Germans and helps us understand, better than we did before, not only what they did to make the Holocaust happen but also how they were transformed psychologically from the ordinary men of his title into active participants in the most monstrous crime in human history. In doing so he aims a penetrating searchlight on the human capacity for utmost evil and leaves us staring at his subject matter with the shock of knowledge and the lurking fear of self-recognition.

            Mr. Browning, a professor of history at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Wash., and the author of two other books on the Holocaust, focuses his study on one killing unit that operated in Poland during the German occupation, Reserve Police Battalion 101 of the German Order Police. This group of 500 policemen, most of them from Hamburg, was made up of truly ordinary men. Most were in their 30’s and 40’s — too old for conscription into the army — and of middle- or lower-class origins.
            They included men who, before the war, had been professional policemen as well as businessmen, dockworkers, truck drivers, construction workers, machine operators, waiters, druggists and teachers. Only a minority were members of the Nazi Party, and only a few belonged to the SS. During their stay in Poland they participated in the shootings, or the transport to the Treblinka gas chambers, of at least 83,000 Jews.

            IN the 1960’s Battalion 101 was investigated for its activities by West German prosecutors. In the process, 210 former members were interrogated, and 125 of the testimonies were detailed enough to enable Mr. Browning, examining the records, to piece together not only how the unit operated but also how its members felt about their participation in the unit’s work. It is on the basis of these testimonies — some of them self-serving and mendacious, Mr. Browning recognizes, but many of them, he believes, remarkably open and revealing — that “Ordinary Men” was written.

            https://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/12/books/the-men-who-pulled-the-triggers.html

        1. This is absurd x X says: July 23, 2019 at 6:50 PM wrote:

          “The men of the reserve police battallion were not a random selection.”

          https://www.nytimes.com/1992/04/12/books/the-men-who-pulled-the-triggers.html

          “They included men who, before the war, had been professional policemen as well as businessmen, dockworkers, truck drivers, construction workers, machine operators, waiters, druggists and teachers. Only a minority were members of the Nazi Party, and only a few belonged to the SS. During their stay in Poland they participated in the shootings, or the transport to the Treblinka gas chambers, of at least 83,000 Jews.”

        2. This is absurd x X says: July 23, 2019 at 6:50 PM
          The thesis of the book has been criticized. The men of the reserve police battallion were not a random selection.
          _____

          Of course it has. By people who are just like you. People who think they know and understand, but don’t.

Leave a Reply