MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973667862 · doi:10.1353/gsp.2011.0076

<i>Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State</i> (review)

2008· article· en· W1973667862 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wendy C. Hamblet

Bibliographic record

VenueGenocide Studies and Prevention · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicItalian Fascism and Post-war Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenocideNazismThe HolocaustSociologyPoliticsWritLawIdeologyScholarshipWorld War IIState (computer science)HistoryReligious studiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Book Review Götz Aly, Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State, trans. Jefferson Chase. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2007. Pp. 332. $32.50 US. Reviewed by Wendy C. Hamblet, Department of University Studies, North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro Every so often, in the broad history of the human world, a madman comes along with a plan for a ‘‘New World Order’’ that includes the targeted mass killing of fellow human beings. This is no great surprise in a world so broad and humanly diverse. The mystery most compelling to genocide scholars is: Why do so many ‘‘ordinary people’’ support their leader’s genocidal project? In the case of the Holocaust, decades of scholarship have produced a spectrum of historical, psychological, and sociological theories to address this mystery. Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem argues for the ‘‘banality of evil’’ among citizens under the power of a totalitarian political regime. Daniel Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners posits a peculiarly virulent form of anti-Semitism universally shared by ordinary Germans of the early twentieth century. Christopher Browning’s more nuanced Ordinary Men, a major research source for Goldhagen’s book, argues against the notion of a uniquely Germanic evil; Browning’s interviews of hundreds of Nazi executioners demonstrate instead that ‘‘ordinary’’ Germans became killers through peculiar historical circumstances and ideological indoctrination, but also because of dangerously common human values such as loyalty to the battalion, a sense of duty, and national pride.1 This argument has proved central to scholarly debates about genocides in general. But the debate takes a fresh twist with Götz Aly’s Hitler’s Beneficiaries. Aly writes to challenge current Holocaust scholarship, which in its latest phase targets German industrialist elites with complicity in Nazi barbarisms. While Aly acknowledges the role of German bourgeois elites in Nazi murder projects, he sees the recent debate as a problematic shift of the burden of blame from the German population at large to a handful of individuals. This shift, he argues, redirects public attention from a pivotal driving factor of the Holocaust—‘‘the potential advantages everyday Germans derived from the Nazi regime’’ (2). The Nazis were not only racist, Aly argues, but classist as well. The welfare of the common people (Volk) was a primary consideration in determining Nazi policy. From the start of the regime’s power, the commoners’ needs were prioritized and their lot economically improved, first through an efficient campaign to eradicate unemployment and then, throughout the war, by incurring an irresponsible level of state debt that was balanced by political and economic violence in occupied territories. Ultimately the Nazis plundered their European neighbors, crippled the economies of the nations they conquered, and starved local populations so that these countries, rather than the German populace, could be made to bear the economic burden of Hitler’s war. In short, Aly argues, racist ideology (Goldhagen’s argument), political realism (Arendt’s ‘‘banality of evil’’ in a totalitarian regime), and historical forces and Wendy C. Hamblet, review of Hitler’s Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State by Götz Aly. Genocide Studies and Prevention 3, 2 (August 2008): 267–268. ß 2008 Genocide Studies and Prevention. doi:10.3138/gsp.3.2.267 bureaucratic standards of compliance (Browning’s Theory) were not the only, or even the primary, motivating factors that drove ordinary Germans to tolerate Nazi racist ideology and to condone and even participate in the murderous acts undertaken during the Third Reich. Rather, Hitler’s pragmatic program of redistributing the plunder of genocide and war to the underprivileged classes convinced the ‘‘ordinary’’ German people that the Nazi leadership had the good of the Volk at heart both in its grandest designs for world domination and in its least pleasant homicidal duties. Wartime expenditures of Hitler’s advancing Volkstaat may have reached dizzying proportions— and Aly documents in the finest detail each phase of the regime’s financial suicide— but the economic care the Nazis extended to the ordinary German Volk of ‘‘proper racial pedigree’’ convinced the people that Germany was headed toward a great and glorious future, a new Volkisch age, directly promoting their material interests. Aly’s stark...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenocide Studies and PreventionSame topicItalian Fascism and Post-war SocietyFrench-language works237,207