Could Hitler have pulled off the Holocaust without Joseph Goebbels or someone of his skill?

I feel like all world leaders, particularly those who do terrible things, need someone to be the front man for their operation. Humans (hopefully) don’t want to be part of atrocities, but we also don’t want to make waves. With someone like Goebbels telling the German people, and the rest of the world, that things were not as bad as they seemed and that what had happened wasn’t really going on, people were allowed to let things go, keep their heads down, and pretend it wasn’t happening.

This is why we as individuals need to question things and make sure to inform ourselves. Being spoon-fed the pablum of an administration spokesperson or a News channel pundit is not actually helpful.

@zephyr826 Personally I think that, while Hitler was extremely charismatic and a great leader, he was as much of a front man as much as any other political leader. If Hitler had not been criminally insane, he could have been amongst the greats of history rather than the worst.

The main jobs that Goebbels had as propaganda minister were to demonize and dehumanize portions of the population. I had access in the 90’s to a video library that the layman could not access. I have seen probably all of the propaganda films. There were animated cartoon films for the children even. This made it easier for the populace to just look the other way. The other job was to rally national spirit and appreciation for the Master Race.

It is my opinion that without those films the general German populace, who had no clue that the Holocaust was occurring, would have objected to the vanishing of vast numbers of people.

That is similar, but not exact, to what you describe. Goebbels created the “internal foe,” mainly the Jews and Gypsies (the two peoples targeted for the Final Solution), which gave a disgruntled, angry, depressed populace something to focus on while showing Hitler as the Savior and the proper people as the bright stars.

That is why so many of the leaders were considered war criminals. because they knew that what they were doing made the killing possible.

@Marina Yup.

Did you know that Pres Truman got Emperor Hirohito off of War Crimes charges after the war? Japan had such as Unit 731 which was a “experimentation” unit similar to what Mengele ran and the Rape of Nanking was swept unter the rug.

Hirohito was a prisoner of the right wing assassins who took over the government. It would have been folly to have prosecuted him: MacArthur would not have been able to govern, and the Japanese “post-war miracle” would never have taken place.

@pdworkin Would you have a link to that? I have not heard of this.

A link to what? The History of World War II? I have an entire library. You are welcome to borrow anything in it.

@pdworkin “Hirohito was a prisoner of the right wing assassins who took over the government” I have never heard anything of that sort but I admit that I am not nearly as strong in WWII history vis a vis Japan as I am vis a vis Germany.

Actually, it is more nuanced than that. There is an ongoing debate. Here is a quote:

The issue of the Emperor’s responsibility for war crimes

Many historians see Emperor Shōwa as responsible for the atrocities committed by the imperial forces in the Second Sino-Japanese War and in World War II and feel that he, some members of the imperial family such as his brother Prince Chichibu, his cousins Prince Takeda and Prince Fushimi, and his uncles Prince Kan’in, Prince Asaka, and Prince Higashikuni, should have been tried for war crimes.[29][30]. Because of this perception of responsibility for war crimes and lack of accountability, many Asians[who?] residing in countries that were subject to Japanese invasion, as well as others in nations that fought Japan, retain a hostile attitude towards the Japanese imperial family.[citation needed]

The issue of Hirohito’s responsibility for war crimes is a debate regarding how much real control the Emperor had over the Japanese military during the two wars. Officially, the imperial constitution, adopted under Emperor Meiji, gave full power to the Emperor. Article 4 prescribed that, “The Emperor is the head of the Empire, combining in Himself the rights of sovereignty, and exercises them, according to the provisions of the present Constitution,” while, according to article 6, “The Emperor gives sanction to laws and orders them to be promulgated and executed,” and article 11, “The Emperor has the supreme command of the Army and the Navy.” The Emperor was thus the leader of the Imperial General Headquarters.[31]

In 1971, David Bergamini showed how primary sources, such as the “Sugiyama memo” and the diaries of Kido and Konoe, describe in detail the informal meetings Emperor Shōwa had with his chiefs of staff and ministers. Bergamini concluded that the Emperor was kept informed of all main military operations and that he frequently questioned his senior staff and asked for changes.[32]

Historians such as Herbert Bix, Akira Fujiwara, Peter Wetzler, and Akira Yamada assert that the post-war view focusing on imperial conferences misses the importance of numerous “behind the chrysanthemum curtain” meetings where the real decisions were made between the emperor, his chiefs of staff, and the cabinet. Historians such as Fujiwara [33] and Wetzler [34], based on the primary sources and the monumental work of Shirō Hara,[35] have produced evidence suggesting that the Emperor worked through intermediaries to exercise a great deal of control over the military and was neither bellicose nor a pacifist, but an opportunist who governed in a pluralistic decision-making process. American historian Herbert Bix argues that Emperor Shōwa might have been the prime mover of most of the events of the two wars.[36]

The view promoted by both the Japanese Imperial Palace and the American occupation forces immediately after World War II had Emperor Shōwa as a powerless figurehead behaving strictly according to protocol, while remaining at a distance from the decision-making processes. This view was endorsed by Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita in a speech on the day of Hirohito’s death, in which Takeshita asserted that the war had broken out against [Hirohito’s] wishes. Takeshita’s statement provoked outrage in nations in East Asia and Commonwealth nations such as the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.[37] For Fujiwara, however, “the thesis that the Emperor, as an organ of responsibility, could not reverse cabinet decision, is a myth fabricated after the war.” [38]

In Japan, debate over the Emperor’s responsibility was taboo while he was still alive. After his death, however, debate began to surface over the extent of his involvement and thus his culpability.[37]

In the years immediately after Hirohito’s death, the debate in Japan was fierce. Susan Chira reported that, “Scholars who have spoken out against the late Emperor have received threatening phone calls from Japan’s extremist right wing.”[37] One example of actual violence occurred in 1990 when the mayor of Nagasaki, Hitoshi Motoshima, was shot and critically wounded by a member of the ultranationalist group, Seikijuku; Motoshima managed to recover from the attack. In 1989, Motoshima had broken what was characterized as “one of [Japan’s] most sensitive taboos” by asserting that Emperor Hirohito bore some responsibility for World War II.[39]

Kentaro Awaya argues that post-war Japanese public opinion supporting protection of the Emperor was influenced by US propaganda promoting the view that the Emperor together with the Japanese people had been fooled by the military.

Here is the source

@pdworkin Thankyou! I am going to do some reading up on this. What I have learned is that Hirohito hid behind the others but did give the Ok to the dirty work. I am always happy to have more information

My earlier take on it was probably influenced by my age. We didn’t have access to the newest research when I studied the period.

@pdworkin Ditto re the time I studied the period. I have continued to study everything that goes into my primary study of the Holocaust but do not tend to pursue other aspects of WWII as thoroughly.

Well, Joseph Goebbels certainly played an important role. But in terms of the planning and execution of the holocaust other figures were more important such as Heinrich Himmler who headed the SS an organization who recruited some of the most cruel and perverse people ultimately capable of mass ordering Zyklon B and emptying the canisters on the rooftops of the concentration camps.

@mattbrowne I consider Himmler just as instrumental as Goebbels and, without Himmler, it could not have been done. I consider them equally important. Himmler was the planning and execution of the mechanics of the Holocaust. Goebbels set the stage and the mindset to allow this crime.

It was a “special breed” of soldiers who were brought into the SS and that is not a good thing.

One of the most chilling videos I have seen is one of the SS goofing off in the camps, having lunch, and all the rest. I have it on a youtube playlist but it, along with over half of my Holocaust videos, has been nuked. I just looked so I could show you.

@Arisztid – Good point. Goebbels created the ultimate level of the perverse mindset. People had to be hard core Nazis to become SS officers for example. They were not normal soldiers. Some SS officers before they got their promotion had to prove their seriousness. Some were handed a living cat and they had to twist the cat’s head and kill it in an instant. Later some SS officers who passed this “test” had to lead the Einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe which involved the shooting of thousands of Jewish men, women and children. A lot of brainwashing is required to get to this level of mental perversion and being able to kill a cat was just the beginning. People with a conscience and scruples did not become SS officers.

Goebbels can be considered the mastermind of brainwashing.

@mattbrowne Yep. I get into a lot of debates with people who do not understand the difference between the SS and the Wehrmacht. It seems that quite a few people think that all of the enlisted Germans were the SS which was just plain not true.

The SS were a “special” breed.

I wonder if anyone before Goebbels was anywhere near as good as he was and, from my admittedly limited knowledge, not too many since him were. If he had the knowledge of brainwashing that is available to modern people, he would have been even more terrifying.

The majority of the German people not really caring about where all of the people went shows how good he really was.

@Arisztid – Have you seen the ‘Downfall’

http://www.amazon.com/Downfall-Bruno-Ganz/dp/B0009RCPUC/

A great, insightful movie. It shows how Goebbels kills all of his children in the bunker, then his wife and then himself.

@mattbrowne No I have not. It is now added to my list. Thankyou!

@Arisztid Douglas MacArthur was given a tremendous amount of power as SCAP in regards to how Japan would be handled in the wake of the war. Even as a “mere” theater commander, MacArthur had a habit of exceeding authority with impunity given his tremendous political skills (Eisenhower: “I studied dramatics under him for seven years!”).

Very extensive economic, cultural and political reforms were considered in the case of Japan and ultimately dropped because (IIRC) MacArthur judged it best that Japan shake off the war and get back on its economic feet as quickly as possible. That the Cold War was looming must have entered into it. I’ve read that the Emperor’s palace and household made a significant impression on him and his staff and a feeling of not wanting to entirely crush an ancient and impressive cultural heritage may have entered into it as well (in a less charitable turn of phrase, they were seduced by the trappings). In turn, the Japanese were awed by MacArthur and many were quite shocked when he was sacked by Truman during the Korean War. For years it had seemed, he had answered to no man.

The sad result of this is that many of the people heavily involved with the exploitation of Korea, Manchuria and China formed the backbone of corporate and political leadership in Japan for decades.

In regards to the original question, I think Hitler himself had such a good intuitive grasp of agitprop and its importance to a totalitarian state that he would not have tolerated a mediocre propaganda minister. If not Goebbels, then it would have been someone else, almost certainly not as “good”, but “good enough” from the standpoint of “pulling off the holocaust” (which, incidently, was kept fairly tightly under wraps, at least at the early stages).

The “What If?” factor as I see it comes in regards to 20 July Plot. The conspirators underestimated Goebbels and his energetic response was part of the reason that the plot failed. Had someone else been in Goebbels’ shoes…

It is a shame that so many people could be duped into following such a man a commit all of those atrocities on innocent humans.
.

I found a little info on Joseph Goebbels in different articles.

“Suppress war, and it would be like trying to suppress the processes of nature.”—Joseph P. Goebbels, Nazi minister for propaganda and national enlightenment.
.
Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, leaders of the ruling Nazi elite, were well aware of the importance of mind control and deception of the masses. On August 24, 1939, Hitler explained to a group of high officers his plans for the invasion of Poland: “I shall give a propagandist cause for starting the war. Never mind whether it is plausible or not. . . . In starting and waging a war, it is not Right that matters but Victory.”
.
Prior to the second world war, for example, Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, took control of Germany’s film industry. Why? Because he realized that this would give him an extremely powerful weapon with which he could “influence people’s beliefs and hence their behaviour.” (Propaganda and the German Cinema 1933–1945) You are probably aware of the chilling effectiveness with which he used this and other means to manipulate ordinary people—normal, rational people—to follow Nazi philosophy blindly.