Teacher criticized for Hitler 'pros and cons' assignment

Just by ways of first reaction, not having looked into it:

- I think it isnt inherently vile to ask students to research the pros and cons of even the most despicable figures. After all, if you teach the class properly, the conclusions they will arrive at will still be the same: that Hitler's Nazi Germany was of an unprecedented evil character. Going through the motions of the pro/con argument may actually provide the student with a deeper insight on this.

- But it sure is tricky to do it that way, especially with 14-year olds ... Do you know this feeling of having just read up on something for the first time and having discovered something new, and being so proud of having found it all out that for a little while you are all full of it and feel like defending it to anyone? The more we study, the less we have that feeling. 14-year olds must have it all the time. Send a kid to study the pros of Hitler's regime for 10 hours and he'll come back all proud of his findings ... ready to defend them ... not good. Thats why its important to phrase the question precisely (as in, I dunno: study what hypothetically the pros and the cons were and why you think one outweighs the other).

- The question still in the end seems mistargeted. Someone already made the point that even if Hitler's Germany arrived at some good products or findings, the extent to which they were inherently outweighed by their human and moral costs makes them irrelevant to any historical evaluation of the significance or character of the regime. What is important is to teach people to understand how it could have gotten that far, how the Nazis came to be popular, etcetera - because its true, just teaching the doctrine "they were evil" doesnt serve understanding. But in order to do that, a much better question than, "find out what the good sides of bad regime X were" would be, "find out what made people at the time feel or believe that bad regime X was a good thing".

I know these shibboleths; they circulate in Germany too. But to reject them and their implications, one must first confront that they have some foundation in reality. Everything you said about Hitler as a non-genius is true. Nevertheless, Germany achieved nearly full employment by 1936 when America did not. Yes, it involved lots of regulation, lots of make-work programs, lots of bullying, and the total exclusion of German Jews. But however tainted, this was a real achievement, one that almost nobody would have thought possible on January 19, 1933.

Similarly, I agree there's a lot of fascist hooey about Hitler's successes in foreign policy and the early years of the war. Still, after the occupation of Austria in 1938, he was the most successful foreign politician since Bismarck. After the war on France, he was probably in a position to negotiate a peace treaty with England that would have made him the greatest military success since Charlemagne. His series of blunders notwithstanding, Hitler's success at these points in time was tainted, but real.

Everyone in this thread knows that Hitler was a psychopath, so couldn't have possibly capitalized on the strategic positions he had reached in 1938 and 1940. But there are millions of psychos out there, and only one of them reached these strategic positions. To teach students how to avoid the next Hitler, it's not enough to just explain why he was a monster. You also have to explain why he was an achieving and successful monster. It is normal that well-meaning people want to neglect the latter part -- nobody likes to tell children stories wherein achievement and success accrue to monsters. It is still a cowardly evasion of reality, and it won't curb the authoritarian mind's perverse fascination with Hitler.

PS: Thanks for the book recommendations. My "to read pile" is frighteningly high already, but I've bookmarked your post and will get back to it as soon as the pile has shrunk a little.

I don't know anything more about this case than what was listed in the article that was linked to roverroad's initial posting. In response to his questions, these are my thoughts.

I think this method of teaching is valid and should be encouraged. Teach students to question, question, question.

There are many valuable lessons to be learned in teaching students that there is no such thing as black & white. Critical thinking and learning how to debate are very important skills for students to learn - particularly learning how to defend a position that you don't necessarily agree with.

As to the age of the students - here are the expectation for grade 10 social studies students in BC, Canada:

http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/ss810/apa3.htm

I don't know what the curriculum for New York grade 10 history is but if it focusses on any world history, it is quite likely that the textbook that is used mentions only how bad these leaders were - and to offset the text's singular point of view the teacher wanted the kids to do some research and come up with some good that came out of what were some very ugly events in history.

It is also possible that the teacher knew the kids would learn a lot more about the atrocities while looking for the good because in doing the research that is what you would come across - many, many more atrocities than good.

One more point - in grade 10, students are subject to all sorts of outside pressures, some of which may be groups that promote hatred, bigotry, and divisiveness.

Hypothetically speaking - a student may be approached by a neo-nazi group who says "what you learned in highschool isn't the truth - look at all the good that came out of Hitler's reign" and when presented with the "good" the student may question the "bad" that was taught at school if they haven't had to think about these types of things before.

I'm guessing that the NY curriculum has similar expectations of their students and the assignment seems to meet the stated objectives of the curriculum I posted.

I believe, as I would guess the teacher does, that in researching the good that Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin brought about, the students would naturally come to the conclusion that the bad far outweighs any good that may have come these situations.

How much debate would have occurred if the students were asked to find the bad that these leaders brought about?

I believe that an excercise like this would teach students that the ends don't justify the means, rather than the opposite.

It is more likely that the parents heard the students' arguments out of context and overreacted than the teacher having intended to teach the students that these three men were good.

I understand the point of using Hitler as a lesson, Thomas, but i don't for a moment consider that he was ever a success at anything except the lowest possible political common denominator. Your remarks about what he had "achieved" in employment, and in "diplomacy" (i hardly consider military conquest diplomacy, but won't argue that here) do not impress me. As you have pointed out, that employment was possible because Jews were excluded, and because he geared up the war machine--he re-occupied the Rhine land in 1935, and began a frantic rearmament program. But the measure of such success is whether or not it is sustainable. To compare the situation to Roosevelt's program in the United States, FDR's did not succeed until war brought the economic expansion of war production. There was an economic "dip" after the Second World War, but the new economic energy in the United States proved "sustainable." Where or not such would have been possible in Germany is difficult to say, but consider that the only way to maintain "full-employment" was for Hitler to got to war--the military expansion was accomplished with deficit spending, and that was only possible because Weimar had already repaid the reparations, and repaired German credit institutions. As i mentioned before, Hitler is frequently credited for the fortuitous results of the actions of others. As for the German "economic miracle" after 1950, there are two important considerations: the first is that this was a genuine production/consumer economy, with wide opportunties to invest and work overseas, which the Germans quickly developed, absent the cronyism of the Nazis, and absent the "no-return" dead end production of war materials. The second is that West Germany was able to do this with almost no military expediture from its gross domestic product, meaning credit instruments and institutions financed enterprise with a return, which made them stronger. However one might argue the Nazis might have done in peace-time, the large military component of that economy was a "dead-beat" program, which bled off revenues, and used up a great deal of available credit, without a return.

I am also unimpressed by any argument that Hitler had accomplished anything militarily. He "pushed the button," but no aspect of German military doctrine and practice was a product of Hitler or the Nazis. It is also important not to discount the crucial factor of British and French inactivity. The western borders of Germany were virtually undefended until late winter 1940--i've already acknowledged the success of Hitler's gamble, but it is based on the correct assessment of Chamberlain's lack of spine. There is no part of that which i consider to have been a military coup. Hitler's great hero (if he ever truly had one) was Frederick II. Late in 1740 the fathers of both Frederick and Maria Theresa died. Frederick immediately set out to take Silesia away from the Austrians. Despite fearful odds, and the relative poverty of the Prussian state, he accomplished this--and through the First Silesian War, the Second Silesian War and the Seven Years War, he managed to hang onto Silesia. He has been vilified by some for this--his claim, in a legalistic sense, at least, was as good as, and arguably much better than that of Maria Theresa. He did this while at the head of his own armies, making the decisions, and the mistakes, which defined the course of each campaign. He made many mistakes, and learned from them. While this took place, he conducted his own foreign policy, usually effectively, and continued to suprervise the administration of the Prussian state, which he had put on a sound footing. Hitler in no way compares. German conquests were achieved in the period 1939-41 simply at his behest, and only with his titular leadership. The sole important decision he made was to operate on the assumption that Britain and France would be quiescent. What passed for foreign policy by Hitler was to cajole (while despising) other fascists, and to bully Britain, France and Poland. His pact with Stalin was again an political achievement, which helped the military situation. Diplomacy with Stalin would not, to my mind, constitute evidence of diplomatic sophistication or ability. He did not hold what he conquered, and the end came the sooner because of his interference. Frederick marched into Silesia in December, 1741. When he died more than 30 years later, Silesia was still a Prussian possession, and its inhabitants, Catholic and Protestant alike, were happy with the situation. The same could hardly be said of Hitler.

I remain unimpressed by any of Hitler's "accomplishments."

The books to which i referred are:

The First and the Last, Adolf Galland
The Rommel Papers, edited by B H Liddell Hart and Frau Rommel

Winston Churchill's The Second World War is an invaluable look from the other side of the water, but unless you're into it, it would be a hard slog.

For a very realistic look at the life of the submariner, a book originally published in German, and likely the book which the author of Das Boote ripped off for his text, has in English the title: Sharks and Little Fishes. I'm sorry, i've forgotten the author's name. There are a raft of excellent personal war memoirs which were written in the 1970's and -80's, as the veterans on all sides of that war aged, and bethought themselves to record their experiences before the passed from us altogether. I don't recall the title or author, but one very striking such memoir was of a man who served on Scharnhorst, and was standing watch as a look-out when the British sank her off the coast of Nowary at Christmas, 1943. That saved his life, that and the courage of British destoyer crews who would not let the Germans drown, either, it they could help it. An excellent novel by an eastern front veteran, originally in German, is also available in English as Cross of Iron. General histories of the war in Europe abound, and most have something to recommend them. As for the psychology of Hitler, the mind of Hitler, i was so sick of him by the time i entered Univeristy, that i've always avoided them. My feeling is that i don't care what may have been his pathology, what motivated him; the facts of the human disaster he represents stand for themselves, and for me, they suffice.

'Das Boot' is by Lothar Günther Buchheim.


"Cross of Iron" was originally called "Das
geduldige Fleisch" ("A Willing Flesh"), by Willi Heinrich (1955) and became later a quite successful film, called "Steiner - das Eiserne Kreuz" (and thus, the book we re-called [re-written?] "Cross of Iron").

Jer, I kind of agree with you. I can see the controversy and all and anything that could even come close to being considered good that came out if it is nullified by the bad. But it is an alternative way of looking at things that I don't think is harmful at all.

We tend to shun bad things in this world and we never want to open our minds to the bigger picture. Because the bad is just so incredibly bad.

I don't know. I do kind of see the teachers philosophy here and I don't think she intended any harm from it.

I almost hate to quote this because after all we're talking about hitler here. But they say it takes 5 good deeds to right one wrong. If that's the case than hitler was a couple million good deads in the hole. So to even try to point out anything good that he did doesn't really even matter. He was the most despicable human in the history of humanity.

That's fine with me. From a macroeconomical point of view, the way out of depressions is to print or borrow lots of money and spend it. The purpose of the spending is almost irrelevant. You can finance the cranking up of a war machine, or social programs, or just throw money out of helicopters. All of it works about equally well.

But in 1930, economists in didn't yet know this. They gave their policy advice based on a collection of theories called 'classical economics'. According to it, Great Depressions can't happen, and deficit spending on Nazi Germany's scale is always grossly irresponsible. They were mostly right. The Nazi's deficit spending would have been grossly irresponsible most times in history. The only time for which this isn't true are severe recessions, like the worldwide one in 1930 or the Japanese one in the 1990s.

Hitler, unlike Roosevelt Hitler didn't pursue his deficit spending because he thought it was responsible. He pursued it because in his world, responsibility didn't matter. If you want to go to war anyway, why worry about an overstretched economy? So it was dumb luck for Germany that the Nazi's economic policy accomplished something (and would have accomplished it even if the Jews hadn't been excluded). Nevertheless, today's economists know the accomplishment was real (though greatly overhyped by the press).


Absolutely -- sorry for my quibbling, but that's why I called it a success, not an accomplishment. Accomplishments happen because someone did something right, possibly without wanting to. Successes can happen not because one side is strong, but because the other side is weak. If you ever play tennis against me, I guarantee you'll be very successful because I'll get a heart attack just from looking at the ball flying by. France's and Britain's foreign policy before Churchill were a lot like my tennis playing, which is what made Hitler successful as a military strategist. I think our disagreement about Hitler's successes is smaller than it sounds.

Allow me just one addition to your reading list: Anna Seghers, The Seventh Cross. It's a novel, but it does a great job describing the mentalities circulating in Germany at the time.

Thanks, Thomas, for the reading suggestion. And thanks to Walter, who finds things so well, so quickly. But now i want you to find me Sharks and Little Fishes. I considered it far superior to Das Boot.

Hmmm: a fish needs a bicycle

I would like to refer back to the origin of this thread, which is to determine what good may have come of Hitler's regime. The basic premise of the question is flawed. If you were a talented, hard-working person, and your city fell into the clutches of a criminal element, because of venality and corruption in the civic officials, you would still be a talented and hard-working person. Were you to build a better mouse trap, that criminal element might claim credit for the mouse trap. However, your talent and hard work, and the products thereof don't refer to the criminal element--you likely would build your better mouse trap whether or not the criminal element took over your city.

Hitler and the National Socialists were such a criminal element. Because many Germans continued to demonstrate that they were talented and hard-working is no reason to assume that Hitler and the Nazis deserve any credit. Therefore, the answer to the question is, no, no good came Hitler and his regime. One may then acknowledge that the German people remained talented and hard-working, which produced much that the Nazis exploited. In teaching children of this dark era, i would consider making such a distinction crucial.

I respectfully disagree. To see why, consider the question from a history-ignorant high school student's point of view. Assisted by geography and history lessons, he takes a look around in space and time. Soon he discovers that he is ruled by a democratic government while many other peoples are ruled by authoritarian, even totatlitarian governments. This sparks his curiosity; he wonders which system might work better.

In this situation, listing the pros and cons of each alternative is a natural tool for finding out. And if done honestly, it will produce the correct result: None of the totalitarian, and probably none of the authoritarian regimes, produced any benefits that came even close to meriting their cost in suppressed freedom, confiscated property and murdered lives.

To me, it makes good sense for the teacher to play along with the pro-and-con and make sure the evaluation stays honest. I don't see anything flawed about the premise of the question.

I disagree, based upon this specific lesson plan as is outlined in the originally-linked lesson (did you read it?) as described in the article. You're proposing a hypothetical exercise, this instructor specified the question of what were the pros and cons of the regimes of Hitler, Moussolini and Stalin. But:



And this is why i have recently mentioned the context of secret admiration (and sometimes an open admiration) of Hitler which remains prevalent in the United States. It is obvious why white supremacists would admire the Nazis. It is less obvious why Hitler and the Nazis continue to be considered by and appeal to a broad segment of American society. It is disturbing as well, and the specific reference to "medical experiments" is a point to be considered. Walter and others have pointed out that no medical benefit arose from the depraved cruelty of the experiments carried out. It was akin to those children who delight in torturing small animals. That this teacher would attempt to suggest that there were any benefit which arose from such practices is very good grounds to suspect the teachers motives, and that the teacher has a warped view of history--because a careful study reveals that no such benefits accrued. You are positing general cases, and i frankly think you continue to argue because you can, and not because you have any case. Looking at this specific case, and bearing in mind the continued fascination with and admiration of the Nazis by all too many Americans, this is a despicable example of how history is warped, and what ought not be taught to students.

Were the lesson plan simply to look at those regimes, then what you have described has merit. But this very thread provides evidence that for some, there continues to be a deluded version of history in which Hitler and his regime were misunderstood, and falsely labelled as evil, when a great deal of good arose from that regime. My contention is that any good which arose was coincidental. The point is worth making in a nation which has so many people who continue to admire and defend Hitler. In this specific case, Thomas, you've wandered away from the point, and i suggest that you are arguing for argument's sake.

I did read the article linked to in the first post; the link in the roverroad's second post didn't work for me, so I didn't read whatever text it pointed to. So all I have to go on is the bit after "the school principal says", which isn't much. For all I can tell, it might well have been just a "devil's advocate" statement that didn't come across as intended. (I often play devil's advocate myself, so I know how easily this happens.) This is the reason I stuck to the abstract case. For what it's worth though, if the spirit of his lesson was what the principal said it was, I think the teacher's behavior was unacceptable.

I'm with Thomas on this one, Set.

As ever, I'm impressed and awe-struck by your memory and delivery of historical detail.

However, I do think it is instructive to look at the elements of bad regimes which make them attractive.

I don't think the point of this thread is to analyse whether any REAL good came from any of the regimes mentioned. The question is whether it is reasonable to ask a teenager to make the analysis for themselves.

I've heard you criticise your old (neo-Nazi) teacher, before. Perhaps your protests are rooted in that experience and your fear that others will be similarly instructed, without seeing the overwhealming balance of evidence on the side that Nazism was "a bad thing".

I find it interesting and disturbing that you consider some elements in the USA to be apologists or covert admirers of Hitler. That is a side to the story I had not heard. I've encountered the most racist comments of my life in America but thought them isolated instances.

Perhaps our European perspective is very different. I was born in 1971 and still grew up with many war stories, "the Germans" cast as evil, without any regard to the fact that most of the servicemen portrayed in these stories were as little to blame for the political decisions of their leaders as their Allied counterparts were.

On an exchange to Munich, when I was 16, the mother of my exchange partner sat me down and told me: "I was not born until after 1945. I do not know how our nation allowed such things to happen but we are ashamed of those people who did."

I was dumbstruck, as I had no idea that guilt and shame still existed so strongly in the collective consciousness of the German people.

I understand that this is changing and that there is a resurgence of pride in what it is to be German. Some of this, no doubt, comes from the longer term effects of re-unification...but the shame has stuck for more than 50 years!

Never, except in extreme political arguments (and look at the reaction to the last election in France, when one candidate was considered far-right) does anyone look at Hitler's legacy with admiration. I'm sad that certain bigots in the USA find themselves empathising with the desires of the Nazis.

By answering the question - what encouraged people to support these dictators? - we come to understand how to assess motivation of peoples, the effects of propaganda and the ease with which the ideas of a few can become the burden of millions. These are SO relevant today.

First of all, Thomas, it was churlish of me to have written as i did (first thing in my morning), so i would like to apologize for my question as to whether you had read the linked material. It was also churlish of me to have said you are arguing for argument's sake. Do, please, forgive that lapsus on my part.

I agree with your statement about the value of a lesson plan to determine what good may have arisen during a "criminal" regime (i put criminal in quotes, because it is a subjective judgment, and can refer to either domestic policy, or international behavior). I feel that it could quickly be dispensed with, though, in a single lesson--and i refer to my comment that the Germans were intelligent and hard-working, whether or not the Nazis were in power. I will reiterate my concern about this incident because of the context of the continued admiration of the Nazis and Hitler among a significant segment of the American population. Two organizations which track hate groups are The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. It is alarming the numbers they give for the membership of such groups. Please know that i continue to respect the considered thought evident in the opinions you express, and can only plead that i hadn't had my coffee yet. And now, on to KP's post.

I appreciate your thougtful comments, KP. The bigotry of Americans ought to be, if it is not already, legendary. Many, and perhaps most, Americans consider that they live in the best country in the world, and show a sad, parochial knowledge of the world they inhabit. Bear with me, and i will examine that a little.

Public education in the United States was largely inaugurated and maintained in the northern states. Noah Webster produced a dictionary, and was at pains to make an American language, with different spellings and usages (and, for what it is worth, he relied upon common vernacular usages, he didn't necessarily attempt to create a language from whole cloth). The early Americans were very conscious of living in a republic which then had the broadest franchise in the world, and they had militant notions of the superiority of their system. There is a consistent theme of moralizing in the arts and letters (such as they were) of the early republic. McGuffey's Eclectic Readers were in wide use throughout the mid-Atlantic states, New England and the Northwest territory, and the lessons in McGuffey's Readers often took a moralistic tone.

In the American South, however, an aristocratic culture held sway, reminiscent of England before the 1832 Reform bill. Because of the "three-fifths" compromise of the Constitution, slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person, for purposes of determining representation in Congress. This meant that there was an inordinate political power in the districts in which slavery was common. The effect of slavery, economically, was to impoverish the white small holder; and in the districts in which they lived, their large numbers were negated by the power of the slave-owners in other districts due to the three-fifths compromise. Public education was not a priority of the governments of these states. When the civil war here began, the original members of the Confederate armies were largely volunteers, and came from families which had privately provided for their education. The "pasty-faced mechanics" of the north (this was how Southerns described them in print) were able to read and write in large numbers because of public education. When their letters and papers were captured by Confederate forces, the scions of aristocratic families would ridicule them for their errors of spelling and grammar.

Later in the war, both sides practiced conscription. Often, troops in Confederate forces from the mountain counties, in which slavery was not practiced, had a fair degree of literacy, because of the measures which their societies had taken privately to educate them--but by and large, their literacy level was well below that of the northerners. When the war was over, the Freedman's Bureau, among other measures, began to educate the newly freed slaves. State governments in the South reacted by creating systems of public education, and strictly controlling them, for ideological reasons. Hence, John Scopes was prosecuted in the 1920's because the state of Tennessee had a law on the books to prohibit the teaching of evolution.

Having lived much of my life in the South (most of it until i came to Ohio fifteen years ago), i am always at pains to point out that many of the faults ascribed to southerners are noticable in the North. The theme of public education as indoctrination tool actually arose in the North. As a small boy in the 1950's, i saw "red scare" literature everywhere in the schools. Many teachers spent an inordinate amount of time ranting against communism, and suggesting that there were "fellow travelers" everywhere hidden in government. I would suspect that an anectdotal survey of Americans who attended elementary school in the 1950's would produce similar stories.

In the 1930's, there were many admirers of facism. It is likely that Roosevelt, if he did borrow ideas, borrowed them from the Italian facists, rather than from the Nazis. After all, both he and Hitler took office in 1933; it is unlikely that either copied the other. Additionally, there was a big "America First" movement, which was isolationist, and wanted to assure that America did not participate in any more European wars. Many political demagogues used the radio effectively, long before FDR's fireside chats, and many of them were distinctly facist in their message. Charles Lindberg was an idol of many Americans, and he was an open admirer of Hitler, and had traveled to Germany to meet with him. The German-American Bund was also very active and influential.

So there is definitely a history of the enlistment of public education in political causes in our nation. Teaching that the "medical" horrors of the concentration camps yielded benefits of medical knowledge (which is roundly denied by knowledgable sources, some of which have been mentioned in this thread) is a clear distortion of history. Given the undercurrent of admiration for Nazis and Hitler in our nation, such a lesson is automatically suspect. This is certainly not taught in university survey courses, or courses for specialists in history in our schools--so it is highly unlikely that the teacher in question "learned" such things at university. It seems very likely that such a lesson is the product of the adoption of the shibboleths by this particular instructor. It is a very disturbing incident for the reasons i have given about the unfortunate misappropriation of educational institutions in this nation for partisan ends.

No problem. This is a lapsus I commit myself on a regular basis. Especially before the first cup of coffee when my brain has yet to be booted up.


I share that concern; we have the same problem in Germany. Part of why I'm so tenacious about giving this teacher the benefit of the doubt is that the shibboleth problem cuts both ways: Modern Germany also has a sad record of obstructing honest discussion by good guys trying to keep bad ideas out of other people's heads.

An especially sad example happened about 10 years ago in Mannheim. A proto-nazi whose name I don't remember had organized a conference of what these people call 'revisionist historians'. The conference prominently featured a long talk by David Irwing, who predictably argued that the Holocaust never took place. Denying the holocaust is illegal in Germany, so the conference organizer was sued.

A court in Mannheim found him guilty. The verdict argued that the organizer was an intelligent man, so knew that Irving was going to say what he turned out to say. And since he had always been open and honest about his anti-semitism, argued the court, the only plausible explanation for the organizer's behavior was that he invited Irwing because he agreed with what he said, and used the conference to spread the word. Therefore the law against holocaust denial applied, even though the organizer himself had prudently left all holocaust denial to foreigners who couldn't get sued.

During the process, the organizer had argued that inviting Irving by itself wasn't a crime, and he himself hadn't denied the Holocaust at that conference, leaving the court with nothing to convict him for. Because the defense's premises were correct, both assertions -- "open and honest" as well as "intelligent" -- were essential for avoiding their conclusion and reaching a conviction.

But that's not how the German press reported the trial at all. From the conservative "Welt" to the greenish-socialist "TAZ", the newspapers titled: "Mannheim court calls Proto-Nazi 'intelligent', 'open' and 'honest'". There was a huge bruhaha that lasted several months, and in the end, the judge was bullied into resigning "for health reasons". A mindless smear campaign, waged by righteous people who felt justified by their noble intentions, had achieved its purpose.

Sorry I'm lecturing for so long. But I thought this episode might illustrate why I am very reluctant indeed to judge this teacher based on a one-paragraph, second-hand account of what actually happened.

-- Thomas

Yeah, but then that would be my quibble with the teacher's question - that it wasn't the question you're suggesting.

To ask, "what encouraged people to support these dictators?" (or: "what good did people expect from these dictators?"), is different from "what good did these dictators do?".

I had rather thought, Thomas, that a situation such as you describe obtains in Germany, but lack sufficient information to state as much. Thanks for the relation of the incident, it is very enlightening, and of course, i am please to find that my surmise is confirmed--given that my opinions are never humble (from my point of view, at the least).

Thomas, when this thread started, i checked the New York Times for an article. This is all that i could find at that time:



Since the article mentioned the Albany Times Union, i went to their web site. Unfortunately, one is obliged to pay for articles which have appeared in that paper. I was able at google, to trace quotes of the original article, but that was very near the event, and today i am unsuccessful in repeating the exercise. It is apparent, however, both from the brief quote above, and from what i read in February, that the teacher responded to students questions with the allegation (which i contend to be completely specious) that medical benefit was derived from the "experiments" conducted at the camps. I did go back to the Times Union site today, and they provide brief excerpts of the articles in the archives, for which one would be obliged to pay (if one were not cheap, as am i, and refuse to do so). This is a excerpt from a letter to the editor by a physician in the Albany area:



It is easy to see why there was outrage in the community. My original search did turn up excerpts of other articles which quote Miss Lyons as attempting to defend the regime by pointing to medical advances which resulted from the death camp experiments. Given the background i've already referred to, this is what lead me initially to conclude that Ms. Lyons is either a dupe of, or a subscriber to the secret admiration of the Nazis and of Hitler.