I think you’re reading things into my comment that aren’t there (given the other comments you left here).
First off, I’m strictly speaking about the legality of the Holocaust in the context of the written law at the time, because you wrongly claimed that “the Holocaust was legal”. The Nazi government was disorganized and didn’t exactly do everything according to the book. It’s how they took control and how they ruled. Hitler ruled by decree, but a lot of that were oral orders without formal legal backing. Trump makes vague attempts to keep his shenanigans remotely legal through executive orders; Hitler didn’t even bother with that. Hitler’s prerogative rule was not codified and so normative law should have applied.
As such, there’s no legal justification permitting the Holocaust. This isn’t because Nazi Germany was actually “good” or some other nonsense. Their legal system had broken down beyond repair, leaving those in power to act with impunity. The Nazis didn’t need the law on their side, as it had been rendered powerless.
We know there were Germans who attempted to investigate crimes at the camps. I believe I read about Josef Hartinger before, a lawyer (not an officer, misremembered that). He investigated murders at Dachau, but his reports were suppressed. After the war it helped convict some Nazis though.
There is an important distinction between immorality derived from the legal system and immorality derived from the lack of a legal system (thus usually derived from power). The Nazis derived theirs from power and the lack of strong legal protections. The Weimar state failed spectacularly in this regard.
None of this apologizes what the Nazis did of course. As you said and this post said, morality is not derived from legality. The Nazis effectively bypassing the normative legal system does not in any way justify their acts.
The legal system may fail to protect against immoral acts. But examining the cause is important, as the legal system is supposed to (in a fundamental sense) protect its citizens. When it fails to do so it is important to examine the why, so we may learn from it.
First a brief note: Josef Hartinger’s investigations, while laudable for many reasons, were for murders carried out years before the start of the holocaust. The investigation was carried out at a time where the Nazi control over Germany was still solidifying, and though it would have taken a great deal to shake it, it was suppressed to prevent revealing the treatment of political prisoners which could have destabilized the still shaky Nazi power bloc (Mainly Germans accused of being communists were killed, it seems. I can’t find the reason for imprisonment for many of the victims, although I’m sure they are recorded somewhere).
If we want to really break down into the legality of the Ermachtigungesetz we’re going to need a big pot of coffee because that’s going to take all night. In short though, yes, the holocaust was legal in that it was authorized through the actions of the chancellor. The position that legality is only conferred by explicitly declared laws is one that sounds reasonable, but wasn’t supported by the (obviously Nazi-dominated) courts as the regime progressed.
By that extension then, yes, the holocaust was legal. Was the murder of an individual jew legal? That’s… much more complicated (strictly speaking no, murder of an arbitrary jew would probably not have been legal - but the legal definitions of what constituted “murder of a jew” were so absurdly warped that there was no chance of that question ever being asked in a court. For example extermination didn’t count as murder, so hey. Also, resisting being murdered was justification for murdering a jew in “self defense”. Nazis, lovely people.), but the mass extermination was carried out by order of the cabinet, and that those orders were secret does not have bearing on the legality of said orders.
What the Nazi regime did was absolutely in violation of the laws of the Weimar Republic (and those various governments that came before it), but the reich was not the Weimar Republic and it went out of it’s way to overwrite and pass laws that explicitly allowed the arbitrary superseding, suspension and nullification of those laws the Nazi cabinet and the Chancellor saw fit to dispose of. The Holocaust, under Nazi rule, was legal. The Holocaust, under the text of the laws Nazi rule used as a basis was not legal. The Nazis had a move-fast-and-break-things approach to governance, and the Nazi legal system was forever in the process of sorting out the legal implications and precedent of whatever new bit of insanity had just been handed to them.
This concept, that the Nazis were somehow doing this completely without legal justification, is often used to isolate the actions of the Nazis from the greater German population. That is wrong, and dangerous to reinforce - it downplays the role the population had in the rise and rule of the Nazis, and tacitly sweeps that support under the great rug of history by implying that the Nazis seized power, rather than being given it by a population that overwhelmingly supported them right up until the end of Nazi rule. (Yes they did brutalize their way to power, but that brutality only happened in a supportive political climate and with huge support from other parties who either aligned themselves politically with them or hoped to co-opt the Nazi’s popularity for their own ends (which did not end well for them…))
I don’t think it’s downplaying or “sweeping under the rug of history” to state facts about the Nazi regime. They did not do things according to the letter of the law. They did a judiciary takeover, allowing illegal acts to happen, and they did seize absolute power, murdering political opponents.
None of these things were possible without a good amount of popular support. And a lot of the population stood by and watched it happen, or even endorsed it.
I do worry you’re falling into the ‘trap’ that neonazis set. Neonazis like to state these things (eg “there’s no written order from Hitler to start the Holocaust”) to deny other historical facts. It’s important you engage these arguments correctly. By arguing against these things being true, you’re falling into the trap, because by and large these arguments aren’t wrong. There is indeed no written order for example.
It’s really important that you deny that the argument even holds any relevance in the first place. It didn’t matter that there’s no written order, the Nazis did it regardless. The Holocaust being illegal does not matter. You can argue the complications of a dual-state legal theory that’s not explicitly codified, and you’ll get lost in the weeds because there’s enough arguments to be brought up there. Instead, you must argue the Nazis didn’t need it to be legal in the first place. Doing so renders the legality argument useless in the context of Holocaust-denial.
The legality aspect is an interesting debate. But be careful that you don’t accidentally legitimize its use in Holocaust denial.
I think you’re reading things into my comment that aren’t there (given the other comments you left here).
First off, I’m strictly speaking about the legality of the Holocaust in the context of the written law at the time, because you wrongly claimed that “the Holocaust was legal”. The Nazi government was disorganized and didn’t exactly do everything according to the book. It’s how they took control and how they ruled. Hitler ruled by decree, but a lot of that were oral orders without formal legal backing. Trump makes vague attempts to keep his shenanigans remotely legal through executive orders; Hitler didn’t even bother with that. Hitler’s prerogative rule was not codified and so normative law should have applied.
As such, there’s no legal justification permitting the Holocaust. This isn’t because Nazi Germany was actually “good” or some other nonsense. Their legal system had broken down beyond repair, leaving those in power to act with impunity. The Nazis didn’t need the law on their side, as it had been rendered powerless.
We know there were Germans who attempted to investigate crimes at the camps. I believe I read about Josef Hartinger before, a lawyer (not an officer, misremembered that). He investigated murders at Dachau, but his reports were suppressed. After the war it helped convict some Nazis though.
There is an important distinction between immorality derived from the legal system and immorality derived from the lack of a legal system (thus usually derived from power). The Nazis derived theirs from power and the lack of strong legal protections. The Weimar state failed spectacularly in this regard.
None of this apologizes what the Nazis did of course. As you said and this post said, morality is not derived from legality. The Nazis effectively bypassing the normative legal system does not in any way justify their acts.
The legal system may fail to protect against immoral acts. But examining the cause is important, as the legal system is supposed to (in a fundamental sense) protect its citizens. When it fails to do so it is important to examine the why, so we may learn from it.
I cheer that you have engaged with the topic!
First a brief note: Josef Hartinger’s investigations, while laudable for many reasons, were for murders carried out years before the start of the holocaust. The investigation was carried out at a time where the Nazi control over Germany was still solidifying, and though it would have taken a great deal to shake it, it was suppressed to prevent revealing the treatment of political prisoners which could have destabilized the still shaky Nazi power bloc (Mainly Germans accused of being communists were killed, it seems. I can’t find the reason for imprisonment for many of the victims, although I’m sure they are recorded somewhere).
If we want to really break down into the legality of the Ermachtigungesetz we’re going to need a big pot of coffee because that’s going to take all night. In short though, yes, the holocaust was legal in that it was authorized through the actions of the chancellor. The position that legality is only conferred by explicitly declared laws is one that sounds reasonable, but wasn’t supported by the (obviously Nazi-dominated) courts as the regime progressed.
By that extension then, yes, the holocaust was legal. Was the murder of an individual jew legal? That’s… much more complicated (strictly speaking no, murder of an arbitrary jew would probably not have been legal - but the legal definitions of what constituted “murder of a jew” were so absurdly warped that there was no chance of that question ever being asked in a court. For example extermination didn’t count as murder, so hey. Also, resisting being murdered was justification for murdering a jew in “self defense”. Nazis, lovely people.), but the mass extermination was carried out by order of the cabinet, and that those orders were secret does not have bearing on the legality of said orders.
What the Nazi regime did was absolutely in violation of the laws of the Weimar Republic (and those various governments that came before it), but the reich was not the Weimar Republic and it went out of it’s way to overwrite and pass laws that explicitly allowed the arbitrary superseding, suspension and nullification of those laws the Nazi cabinet and the Chancellor saw fit to dispose of. The Holocaust, under Nazi rule, was legal. The Holocaust, under the text of the laws Nazi rule used as a basis was not legal. The Nazis had a move-fast-and-break-things approach to governance, and the Nazi legal system was forever in the process of sorting out the legal implications and precedent of whatever new bit of insanity had just been handed to them.
This concept, that the Nazis were somehow doing this completely without legal justification, is often used to isolate the actions of the Nazis from the greater German population. That is wrong, and dangerous to reinforce - it downplays the role the population had in the rise and rule of the Nazis, and tacitly sweeps that support under the great rug of history by implying that the Nazis seized power, rather than being given it by a population that overwhelmingly supported them right up until the end of Nazi rule. (Yes they did brutalize their way to power, but that brutality only happened in a supportive political climate and with huge support from other parties who either aligned themselves politically with them or hoped to co-opt the Nazi’s popularity for their own ends (which did not end well for them…))
I don’t think it’s downplaying or “sweeping under the rug of history” to state facts about the Nazi regime. They did not do things according to the letter of the law. They did a judiciary takeover, allowing illegal acts to happen, and they did seize absolute power, murdering political opponents.
None of these things were possible without a good amount of popular support. And a lot of the population stood by and watched it happen, or even endorsed it.
I do worry you’re falling into the ‘trap’ that neonazis set. Neonazis like to state these things (eg “there’s no written order from Hitler to start the Holocaust”) to deny other historical facts. It’s important you engage these arguments correctly. By arguing against these things being true, you’re falling into the trap, because by and large these arguments aren’t wrong. There is indeed no written order for example.
It’s really important that you deny that the argument even holds any relevance in the first place. It didn’t matter that there’s no written order, the Nazis did it regardless. The Holocaust being illegal does not matter. You can argue the complications of a dual-state legal theory that’s not explicitly codified, and you’ll get lost in the weeds because there’s enough arguments to be brought up there. Instead, you must argue the Nazis didn’t need it to be legal in the first place. Doing so renders the legality argument useless in the context of Holocaust-denial.
The legality aspect is an interesting debate. But be careful that you don’t accidentally legitimize its use in Holocaust denial.