Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 460
Netizens-Digest Friday, April 4 2003 Volume 01 : Number 460
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Re[2]: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 13:17:06 -0500
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
>Hello Howard: Thank you for enlightening me on some of the
>organizational aspects of
>the Third Reich. I thought of Ohlendorf being a subbordinate of
>Himmler, rather than
>Canaris, but sometimes the word "intelligence", pertaining to things
>of the Third
>Reich makes me automatically think of Canaris.
When dealing with most totalitarian states, remember there are
usually at least two parallel intelligence structures, one under the
Party (Heydrich/Kaltenbrunner) and one under the military (Canaris,
Gehlen, etc.)
>I didn't realize Fieldmarshall or was
>it Reichmarshall H.Guderian "The Panzer King" was among Hitler's
>"court favorites",
Guderian never had that high a rank -- Colonel General, IIRC. But for
some reason, he could get into shouting matches with Hitler and
survive. Hitler might put him on medical leave and mutter something
about "The General is under stress," but for unknown reasons never
seemed to go further than leave.
>like Albert Speer was.
>Was Nebe part of the "Red Orchestra" conspiracy , the bombing at the
>Wolf's Lair on
>7/20/44?
The latter.
>You're right about Stalin, he was milder than Hitler, but there
>wasn't much room in
>there either. Everything was Da,Da, Da, or else.
>I am sorry to hear about your heart condition and your dad's early
>demise. I lost my
>dad to a cerebral hemorrage when he was 46, I was 19 at the time.
>You're absolutely
>right when you say everything's getting more technical, but
>sometimes I dislike
>dealing with technicalities, but I realize they're a must.
>Luis de Quesada
>
>"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
>
>> >Hello Howard: I am somewhat familiar with Otto Ohlendorf and his Inland
>> >Intelligence, (was he a subordinate of Admiral Canaris or
>> >Himmler?)and later on his
>> >SS Einzatskommando, just another extermination unit. There wasn't
>> >much or any room
>> >at the top echelon of the Third Reich for any surveys,constructive
>> >criticism,never
>> >mind plain criticism, the only disagreement was on efficiency
>>etc. Statistical
>> >methods were always used as a way to more efficient and faster killings,
>> >extermination at death camps, etc.
>>
>> When I spoke of Ohlendorf, who was a subordinate of Himmler, I was
>> focusing on his role well before he was involved in extermination.
>> Among the second-tier Nazis, he was notable for his substantial
>> academic background (law and/or economics, etc.).
>>
>> Please don't misunderstand and assume I think he was some sort of
>> hero. But he was internally called the "Crusty Knight of National
>> Socialism," a reference to Gotz von Berlichingen (a Goethe
>> character), in that he often criticized leaders for being
>> opportunists and straying from the "Holy Grail" of Nazi ideologies.
>> In other words, while he may have been an evil man, he was a
>> principled evil man.
>>
>> Himmler, as head of security and the SS, reported to Hitler. Under
>> Himmler were about 8 various-sized administrative directorate, of
>> which a critical one was the Security Directorate (RSHA) under
>> Heydrich and then Kaltenbrunner. Under the RSHA were two SD
>> intelligence (as opposed to the Gestapo's operational secret police
>> role) divisions, Inland SD under Ohlendorf and External SD under
>> Schellenberger. Inland SD was concerned with public opinion and what
>> I'll call the "long-term detection of dissent." as opposed to
>> specific "anti-social" elements under the authority of the Gestapo.
>>
>> Canaris was in military intelligence, with a completely different
>> reporting line that bypassed Himmler.
>>
>> "Inland SS" produced a series of "Reports from the Reich," which were
>> highly secret opinion polls and other survey data. I have not read
>> them personally, but I've been told they were as objective as the
>> social science of the time knew how to do. They were also extremely
>> unpopular with the top leadership, which put Ohlendorf in danger of
>> being purged.
>>
>> Up to that point, Ohlendorf probably was not significantly involved
>> in war crimes. In a misguided effort to restore their Party
> > standing, Ohlendorf and Nebe (Criminal Police chief) volunteered to
> > lead Einsatzgruppen. Nebe, incidentally, was active in the
>> anti-Hitler plots and was later executed by the Nazis for his
>> participation.
>>
>> Ohlendorf had little if anything to do with the concentration or
>> extermination camps. He probably did report that the Einsatzgruppen,
>> which worked by shooting, were not efficient.
>>
>> >I think Stalin did likewise,not much room for criticism, that is,
>> >although ethnic
>> >cleansing was not one of his top priorities.
>>
>> Stalin, as seen from the writings of several of his immediate
>> associates, differed here from Hitler. Before Stalin made a
>> decision, he was apparently quite permissive about frank and open
>> discussion of alternatives within the top leadership circle,
>> something Hitler never did. Of course, if a leader continued to
>> argue after Stalin made the decision, said dissenter might be purged.
>>
>> The opportunity for dissent never went below the level of Stalin's
>> inner circle, but it was slightly more evident than with Hitler.
>> Hitler did have a few favorites that could criticize him without
>> personal fear (e.g., Speer, Guderian), but their arguments seemed to
>> have little impact.
>>
>> >I hope in this case we are not dealing with the likes of Hitler,
>> >Heydrich, et al.
>> >Just a simple electoral referendum here in a democracy, a republic
>> >or a facsimile
>> >thereof, the definitions of our present system of government are
>>getting too
>> >technical for me lately.
>>
>> Unfortunately, and with all due respect, life itself grows
>> increasingly more technical. A personal perspective: my father died
>> of heart disease at 42, and was severely disabled by it through his
>> late thirties. I'm 54, but by aggressive use of medical techniques
>> not dreamed of in his lifetime, I have no major cardiac limitations
>> -- although I've had two angioplasties, a quadruple bypass, a
>> pacemaker, and daily handfuls of drugs.
>>
>> I'll happily take that additional complication.
>>
>> >Luis de Quesada
>> >
>> >"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Howard wrote,
>> >> >
>> >> >> Our social scientists can comment better than I,
>> >> >
>> >> >Looks like you have it covered. Carry on. <grin>
>> >> >
>> >> >I will add: Many people are allergic to the very thought of
>>surveys, but if
>> >> >we're thinking in terms of non-binding Internet 'referenda,'
>> >>survey methods do
>> >> >have some useful lessons. Of course I don't mean to imply
>>that some such
>> >> >referenda, by themselves, would constitute some apotheosis of
>>democratic
>> >> >process. But they could be a useful mechanism for publics to
>> >>learn more about
>> >> >their collective beliefs.
>> >> >
>> >> >Mark
>> >>
>> >> Again, we have the glimmerings of a proposal for something Netizens
>> >> might do. Assume, for the sake of argument, that truly binding
>> >> referenda have enough structural problems such that they are not
>> >> viable as part of the decisionmaking process. Factors could involve
>> >> accessibility with the digital divide, the need to reduce complex
>> >> situations to propositions that can be voted on [1], and the
>> >> susceptibility of the process to short-term, less than reflective
>> >> thinking.
>> >>
>> >> To what extent would the existence of a trusted survey organization,
>> >> whose outputs certainly will be considered -- if not agreed to -- by
>> >> lawmakers, be useful as an adjunct to the political process? Is it
>> >> feasible to create in a broad-based way that frees it from
>> >> partisanship?
>> >>
>> >> Ironically, there have been some suboptimal historical examples of
>> >> what happened when good survey data was produced. In Nazi Germany,
>> >> the "Inland SD" intelligence agency, under Otto Ohlendorf, did what
>> >> were generally considered very objective surveys of public opinion,
>> >> whose results were circulated to perhaps 100 individuals in the
>> >> leadership. The data produced was so in opposition to what the
>> >> leadership wanted to hear that these "Reports from the Reich" were
>> >> shut down. Ohlendorf, a Nazi intellectual reputed to have a degree of
> > >> intellectual honesty, volunteered to lead an extermination force
> > >> (Einsatzkommando) as penance and political rehabilitation. For that,
>> >> he was executed by order of one of the later war crimes trials. It's
>> >> entirely possible that if he had not made that choice, while he was
>> >> an ideological Nazi, he might very well have come out with little or
>> >> no punishment and perhaps a legitimate academic appointment.
>> >>
>> >> Ohlendorf's example is NOT the way to do things.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 14:00:57 -0500
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Hello Howard: Maybe Hitler's pampering of Guderian was due to the amazing results
of his panzers who spearheaded his successful blitzkriegs, since Jodl and Keitel
were also in the inner group but apparently were not as pampered. I will remember
about "intelligence" at the party and military levels that characterize
totalitarian states, Cuba is pretty much like that. I think Guderian was a
Fieldmarshall, he was the supreme commander of all panzer divisions and I think a
great strategist.
Luis de Quesada
"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >Hello Howard: Thank you for enlightening me on some of the
> >organizational aspects of
> >the Third Reich. I thought of Ohlendorf being a subbordinate of
> >Himmler, rather than
> >Canaris, but sometimes the word "intelligence", pertaining to things
> >of the Third
> >Reich makes me automatically think of Canaris.
>
> When dealing with most totalitarian states, remember there are
> usually at least two parallel intelligence structures, one under the
> Party (Heydrich/Kaltenbrunner) and one under the military (Canaris,
> Gehlen, etc.)
>
> >I didn't realize Fieldmarshall or was
> >it Reichmarshall H.Guderian "The Panzer King" was among Hitler's
> >"court favorites",
>
> Guderian never had that high a rank -- Colonel General, IIRC. But for
> some reason, he could get into shouting matches with Hitler and
> survive. Hitler might put him on medical leave and mutter something
> about "The General is under stress," but for unknown reasons never
> seemed to go further than leave.
>
> >like Albert Speer was.
> >Was Nebe part of the "Red Orchestra" conspiracy , the bombing at the
> >Wolf's Lair on
> >7/20/44?
>
> The latter.
>
> >You're right about Stalin, he was milder than Hitler, but there
> >wasn't much room in
> >there either. Everything was Da,Da, Da, or else.
> >I am sorry to hear about your heart condition and your dad's early
> >demise. I lost my
> >dad to a cerebral hemorrage when he was 46, I was 19 at the time.
> >You're absolutely
> >right when you say everything's getting more technical, but
> >sometimes I dislike
> >dealing with technicalities, but I realize they're a must.
> >Luis de Quesada
> >
> >"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >
> >> >Hello Howard: I am somewhat familiar with Otto Ohlendorf and his Inland
> >> >Intelligence, (was he a subordinate of Admiral Canaris or
> >> >Himmler?)and later on his
> >> >SS Einzatskommando, just another extermination unit. There wasn't
> >> >much or any room
> >> >at the top echelon of the Third Reich for any surveys,constructive
> >> >criticism,never
> >> >mind plain criticism, the only disagreement was on efficiency
> >>etc. Statistical
> >> >methods were always used as a way to more efficient and faster killings,
> >> >extermination at death camps, etc.
> >>
> >> When I spoke of Ohlendorf, who was a subordinate of Himmler, I was
> >> focusing on his role well before he was involved in extermination.
> >> Among the second-tier Nazis, he was notable for his substantial
> >> academic background (law and/or economics, etc.).
> >>
> >> Please don't misunderstand and assume I think he was some sort of
> >> hero. But he was internally called the "Crusty Knight of National
> >> Socialism," a reference to Gotz von Berlichingen (a Goethe
> >> character), in that he often criticized leaders for being
> >> opportunists and straying from the "Holy Grail" of Nazi ideologies.
> >> In other words, while he may have been an evil man, he was a
> >> principled evil man.
> >>
> >> Himmler, as head of security and the SS, reported to Hitler. Under
> >> Himmler were about 8 various-sized administrative directorate, of
> >> which a critical one was the Security Directorate (RSHA) under
> >> Heydrich and then Kaltenbrunner. Under the RSHA were two SD
> >> intelligence (as opposed to the Gestapo's operational secret police
> >> role) divisions, Inland SD under Ohlendorf and External SD under
> >> Schellenberger. Inland SD was concerned with public opinion and what
> >> I'll call the "long-term detection of dissent." as opposed to
> >> specific "anti-social" elements under the authority of the Gestapo.
> >>
> >> Canaris was in military intelligence, with a completely different
> >> reporting line that bypassed Himmler.
> >>
> >> "Inland SS" produced a series of "Reports from the Reich," which were
> >> highly secret opinion polls and other survey data. I have not read
> >> them personally, but I've been told they were as objective as the
> >> social science of the time knew how to do. They were also extremely
> >> unpopular with the top leadership, which put Ohlendorf in danger of
> >> being purged.
> >>
> >> Up to that point, Ohlendorf probably was not significantly involved
> >> in war crimes. In a misguided effort to restore their Party
> > > standing, Ohlendorf and Nebe (Criminal Police chief) volunteered to
> > > lead Einsatzgruppen. Nebe, incidentally, was active in the
> >> anti-Hitler plots and was later executed by the Nazis for his
> >> participation.
> >>
> >> Ohlendorf had little if anything to do with the concentration or
> >> extermination camps. He probably did report that the Einsatzgruppen,
> >> which worked by shooting, were not efficient.
> >>
> >> >I think Stalin did likewise,not much room for criticism, that is,
> >> >although ethnic
> >> >cleansing was not one of his top priorities.
> >>
> >> Stalin, as seen from the writings of several of his immediate
> >> associates, differed here from Hitler. Before Stalin made a
> >> decision, he was apparently quite permissive about frank and open
> >> discussion of alternatives within the top leadership circle,
> >> something Hitler never did. Of course, if a leader continued to
> >> argue after Stalin made the decision, said dissenter might be purged.
> >>
> >> The opportunity for dissent never went below the level of Stalin's
> >> inner circle, but it was slightly more evident than with Hitler.
> >> Hitler did have a few favorites that could criticize him without
> >> personal fear (e.g., Speer, Guderian), but their arguments seemed to
> >> have little impact.
> >>
> >> >I hope in this case we are not dealing with the likes of Hitler,
> >> >Heydrich, et al.
> >> >Just a simple electoral referendum here in a democracy, a republic
> >> >or a facsimile
> >> >thereof, the definitions of our present system of government are
> >>getting too
> >> >technical for me lately.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, and with all due respect, life itself grows
> >> increasingly more technical. A personal perspective: my father died
> >> of heart disease at 42, and was severely disabled by it through his
> >> late thirties. I'm 54, but by aggressive use of medical techniques
> >> not dreamed of in his lifetime, I have no major cardiac limitations
> >> -- although I've had two angioplasties, a quadruple bypass, a
> >> pacemaker, and daily handfuls of drugs.
> >>
> >> I'll happily take that additional complication.
> >>
> >> >Luis de Quesada
> >> >
> >> >"Howard C. Berkowitz" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >Howard wrote,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Our social scientists can comment better than I,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Looks like you have it covered. Carry on. <grin>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I will add: Many people are allergic to the very thought of
> >>surveys, but if
> >> >> >we're thinking in terms of non-binding Internet 'referenda,'
> >> >>survey methods do
> >> >> >have some useful lessons. Of course I don't mean to imply
> >>that some such
> >> >> >referenda, by themselves, would constitute some apotheosis of
> >>democratic
> >> >> >process. But they could be a useful mechanism for publics to
> >> >>learn more about
> >> >> >their collective beliefs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Mark
> >> >>
> >> >> Again, we have the glimmerings of a proposal for something Netizens
> >> >> might do. Assume, for the sake of argument, that truly binding
> >> >> referenda have enough structural problems such that they are not
> >> >> viable as part of the decisionmaking process. Factors could involve
> >> >> accessibility with the digital divide, the need to reduce complex
> >> >> situations to propositions that can be voted on [1], and the
> >> >> susceptibility of the process to short-term, less than reflective
> >> >> thinking.
> >> >>
> >> >> To what extent would the existence of a trusted survey organization,
> >> >> whose outputs certainly will be considered -- if not agreed to -- by
> >> >> lawmakers, be useful as an adjunct to the political process? Is it
> >> >> feasible to create in a broad-based way that frees it from
> >> >> partisanship?
> >> >>
> >> >> Ironically, there have been some suboptimal historical examples of
> >> >> what happened when good survey data was produced. In Nazi Germany,
> >> >> the "Inland SD" intelligence agency, under Otto Ohlendorf, did what
> >> >> were generally considered very objective surveys of public opinion,
> >> >> whose results were circulated to perhaps 100 individuals in the
> >> >> leadership. The data produced was so in opposition to what the
> >> >> leadership wanted to hear that these "Reports from the Reich" were
> >> >> shut down. Ohlendorf, a Nazi intellectual reputed to have a degree of
> > > >> intellectual honesty, volunteered to lead an extermination force
> > > >> (Einsatzkommando) as penance and political rehabilitation. For that,
> >> >> he was executed by order of one of the later war crimes trials. It's
> >> >> entirely possible that if he had not made that choice, while he was
> >> >> an ideological Nazi, he might very well have come out with little or
> >> >> no punishment and perhaps a legitimate academic appointment.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ohlendorf's example is NOT the way to do things.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 12:08:15 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
Aac> the time of voting. You need to build some universally accessible
Aac> "intelligent agents" with data mining features.
That's where XML comes to the game, doesn't it?
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- "ye shall not rob from the house i have built" thief1 -*
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #460
******************************
