North Carolina Books

This important book examines the medical and biological roots of Nazi Germany's campaign to rid itself of those deemed to be a threat to its biological health. Consisting of seven essays and 270 illustrations--photographs, images from Nazi publications, and historical artifacts--it describes how the Nazi regime enacted "racial hygiene" programs designed to purge German society of those it considered physically, mentally, and racially unfit.

The first four essays are by Sheila Faith Weiss ("German Eugenics, 1890-1933"), Daniel Kevles ("International Eugenics"), Gisela Bock ("Nazi Sterilization"), and Benoit Massin ("The 'Science of Race'").

The fifth essay--"Nazi 'Euthanasia' Programs" by Michael Burleigh'--describes the secret campaign Hitler launched in 1939 to rid Germany of those it declared mentally and physically unfit ("life unworthy of life"). The campaign began with the use of sedative overdoses, morphine injections, and starvation to kill children in hospitals. The "euthanasia" program then expanded to include adults who were gassed in specially built chambers at six killing centers inside the Third Reich--Bernburg, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hadamar, and Sonnenstein in Germany and Hartheim in Austria.

In the sixth essay--"From 'Euthanasia' to the 'Final Solution'"--Henry Friedlander writes about how the Nazi murder of Germans judged physically and mentally unfit paved the way for the extermination of Jews in Poland. When Hitler ended the official phase of the euthanasia program in 1941 (the killings continued unofficially), much of the program's personnel and equipment were sent to Poland to set up and operate the Operation Reinhard death camps--Treblinka, Belzec, and Sobibor.

Many historians consider the mass killings of Jews in the Soviet Union after the Nazi invasion as the beginning of the Final Solution, but Friedlander argues that the killing of Jewish disabled patients in Germany and German-occupied Poland in 1940 just because they were Jews was an even earlier starting point.

The book concludes with "Reflections of a German Scientist" by Benno Müller-Hill, who describes the "contagious mix of science with ideology that was so very destructive" during the Nazi era. He writes that after the war there was virtually total silence about what science and, more specifically, genetics had wrought under the Nazis. When Karl Saller's critical book about anthropology during the Nazi period was published in 1961, his German colleagues shunned him. The silence in German scientific circles continued until 1980. "Today, when most of the perpetrators are dead," writes Müller-Hill, "the history of eugenics under the Nazis can finally be written."

This book, written in conjunction with the current exhibit at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, shows how German doctors, scientists, public health officials, and academic experts entrusted with the responsibility of enhancing and protecting life came instead to be agents of persecution and death.

--review by Dr. Charles Patterson, author of ETERNAL TREBLINKA: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust

Dr. Sarotte has done something with this book that I did not think was possible. She has made the Cold War fresh. By looking at the Cold War from the perspective of Germany, rather than from the perspective of the superpowers, Dr. Sarotte has given us an inciteful window on the realities of Cold War international relations. She reminds us that it was not always the superpowers who were driving the course of the Cold War--an extremely important point to remember. Furthermore, she does it in a style that is both engaging and informative. I could not put the book down. I can't remember the last time I felt this way about a Cold War book!

This was required reading for a graduate course in American history.
Brooks book highlights another example of how Americans, demobilizing from a foreign war against racism and tyranny, became acutely aware of their own country's inconsistencies and hypocrisies about race and democracy. This article shows how returning veterans - both black and white - organized protests against the undemocratic machine in their home state of Georgia, but struggled with the degree to which they embraced racial change. Brooks argues that it is difficult to ascertain whether World War II helped inspire change, or just reinforced the status quo in Georgia and the South.

Using both primary sources, such as interviews and newspaper articles, and secondary sources, Brooks recounts the efforts of returning veterans. She regards veteran activism as a "barometer by which to measure the war's political impact" (564) and supports her argument by detailing the opinions of veterans and describing efforts of black and white veterans groups to jointly support political campaigns. Brooks suggests that the contradictions about race, economics and social progress the veterans experienced help define the postwar period as disruptive and destabilizing.

One example of black and white Georgian veterans groups working together was when the black World War II-Veterans Association mobilized so many black voters that they ultimately gave the win to the white Citizens
Progressive League, thereby ousting a less progressive incumbent political machine. Another more direct example is the interracial American Veterans Committee, in which black and white veterans worked to obtain full GI benefits and better housing and to stop police brutality against blacks. They also worked side by side toward change by jointly supporting moderate or liberal candidates. against white supremacist candidates like Eugene Talmadge. Finally, black and white veterans jointly launched an attack on the county-unit system, which apportioned electoral votes so that it discriminated against urbanites, blacks and the working class. A joint coalition, called the Georgia Veterans for Majority Rule, challenged this practice through lawsuits and letter campaigns.

Brooks reinforces the argument of the ambiguity of World War II as catalyst or as a constrictor of racial change by examining the other side of the argument the times when progressive racial reform agendas failed. For example, she details reactionary efforts of veterans who aligned themselves with the Ku Klux Klan or the Columbians, Inc. and how their tactics prevented efforts of moderate politics. She found that the economic situation was an important element in the Ku Klux Klan's and Columbians' ability to successfully recruit white veterans. Many veterans felt entitled to some of the spoils of the reconversion efforts and became disillusioned by the realities of overcrowding and the slow economic situation of post-war Georgia. As we saw in McEnaney's article2 some white veterans fought to claim their position on the top of the economic hierarchy and became afraid of competition from blacks.

Alternatively, these economic concerns inspired other white veterans to overturn the corruption and inefficiency of incumbent regimes. They were also embarrassed by the wartime remarks of fellow servicemen from other states deriding their home state's economic depravity and corrupt politics. Therefore, they fought to change the status quo and successfully ousted the incumbent political machines. However, these white veterans were most convinced by arguments that the corruption infringed upon their economic rights, not necessarily acknowledging the infringement upon the civil rights of their fellow black veterans. These often separate, even opposing, positions of race and economics reflect the ambiguity that is inherent in the definition of progress.
Brooks further reflects this ambiguity about race in her description of James Carmichael's campaign, in which he both attacked the racial extremism of the Ku Klux Klan and advocated the county-unit system. She declares that most white veteran campaigners were forced to adopt a two-faced outlook about progress, in which they advocated for economic growth and modernization while enforcing racial status quo. She asserts that the legacy of this period is one in which racial reform and economic reform walked side by side, but that growth politics
ultimately prevailed over progressive racial politics. While Brooks paints a complex picture of post-war Georgia politics and society, her arguments were incoherent at times. Instead of arguments postulated and defended with concrete examples, she presents incidences of where policies failed and where they succeeded. For example, she discusses how the CPL's campaign for economic modernization of society defeated the
status quo, often racist, Savannah incumbent party then, in the next sentence, discusses how the status quo county:-system defeated a more progressive campaigner, Carmichael. Perhaps, however, Brook's employs these juxtaposed arguments as a scholarly technique to parallel the ambiguity about race and economics and whether World War II helped inspire change, or reinforced the status quo in Georgia.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in American history, civil rights history.

When "A Deplorable Scarcity, the Failure of Industrialization in the Slave Economy," was published in 1981, substantial scholarship had already propounded several hypotheses for the South's failure to industrialize. This "deplorable scarcity" of manufacturing capacity contributed to a common theme of industrial backwardness among writers of southern history. What Fred Bateman and Thomas Weiss brought to the mix was an economic approach. Using quantifiable data they tested the hypotheses of other historians to comming up with a more verifiable conclusion of their own. Because it is a synthesis of ideas, "A Deplorable Scarcity" has proven to be a benchmark in historiographical comment.

Various hypotheses are objectively evaluated according to an econometric standard. These tests and the data samples used are described in an extensive appendix. By their approach the authors conclude that the South's failure to reach full potential was attributable to the human behavior of the planter class. The reason lay somewhere between planter's perception of the comparative advantage of agriculture and their aversion to risk taking. Bateman and Weiss argue that an unrealized potential for industrialization existed in the South, but that the attitude and behavior of the planter class inhibited its development.

For their evidence the author's use the manuscripts of census enumerators. Due to the volume of information, computer technology and random sampling were used to apply new perceptions and methods in economic history. Significantly the authors provide new evidence on industrial rates of return. These are presented in Table 5.1 and it shows that southern manufacturing averaged a 28% rate of return in 1860 compared to 25% in 1850.

Bateman and Weiss surmise that the industrial potential indicated by the return on investment would have been known and understood by planter investors but that this knowledge was ignored in favor of agriculture. The authors attribute Southern industrial backwardness to either of the planter's aversion to risk or the comparative advantage of agriculture.

This is an excellent source for anyone researching the surname McGaha or McGaughey. Also included are early Townsend and Dyer lines. These began in Pensylvania, Delaware, Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and details the migration to Oklahoma.

Now that we're in the midst of a resurgence of Darwin applied to humans, it's all the more important to have historical perspective on earlier assimilations of Darwinism. Kelly's study is essential reading for understanding the assimilation in Germany. He shows that Darwinism, in its initial phase, was a jolly good blunt instrument for anti-clericism and the promotion of humanist philosophy. Popularizers, who were often scientists, did not typically take sides in the then great agitated question of Capitalism vs. Socialism. The embattled religious establishment tended to interpret any secularist advocacy as a prelude to socialism, but this was merely a bias of perspective. Kelly shows that the big capitalist establishment did not rush to embrace popularized Darwinism. Many socialists were Darwinians, and viewed the 'struggle for existence' as a confirmation of their revolutionary creed, but they also found in Darwin a justification of progress toward a society that transcended the brutal world of animal nature. Kelly corrects previous interpretations (especially Daniel Gasman) of popular Darwinism as a prelude to Nazi Darwinism. The alleged proto-Nazis of the Monist League were in reality humanists of an emphatic anti-clerical stripe.

Kelly's study has not enjoyed the attention that it deserves.

Hiram Caton

This book was one of the required text books in a Social Psychology class I took. The requirement was only a selection of experiments, but because of the interesting collection, and the supurb organization I read the entire book. Very worthwhile!

Great quality map with lots of detail. The only map I know of that shows all of the overlooks. What's neat is that the map also shows the surrounding areas (waterfalls, picnic areas, etc.) A quality product!

This book changed the way I nurse, the way I think of myself as a nurse and the way I think about nursing, in fact, the way I think about myself as a person. It makes me realize that if nurses are to be more than technicians, that nursing is primarily an ethical exercise. Who you are, your character, directs what you do with the knowledge you have. Any skill, nursing or otherwise, can be used for good or ill. It is the one wielding the skill that aims at the mark. Sometimes you miss, but if you don't aim, hitting is just dumb luck and a poor bet. I apply the same logic to physicians, plumbers, priests, politicians, judges, and garage mechanics. Margaret Sandelowski, I hope you read this. Thanks.

I don't know author, Benjamin Alpers, but I can only presume that the reason this book is back in print is because it is more relevant today than when it first came out in 1965. Americans today have no idea of all the dictatorship talk and publications, not to mention dictatorship signs, going on here in America during the period between 1920 and the 1950's.

Today, this has all escalated and if we want to learn about what is going on today politically, we must learn from what took place earlier in the last century.

On that note, shall we begin with a quote from the book that is all but unfathomable: "For a brief period between the end of 1932 and the beginning of 1933 a small but varied group of influential citizens began to call for some variation of dictatorship in the United States". Yes, you read that right. At a very minimum, it should get you to thinking about how fragile democracy is and when the cultural producers of this country decide to transform into dictatorship, it will happen. Alpers defines cultural producers in this book to include professors, policymakers, speechwriters, presidents, filmmakers, novelists, and business leaders. It is this group that have "defined what views were "mainstream" and what views were "extreme"."

Here's a thought to chew on: Alpers writes, "Indeed, mere participation in a war could threaten to turn a democracy into a totalitarian state".

The book explains how friendly US business was to fascist Italy and how they admired Mussolini. "So relieved was the U.S. press at Mussolini's seizure of power in 1922 that few journalists bothered to report his hostility to democracy". Alpers writes that Paul Y. Anderson, a writer for the Nation wrote an article "entitled "Wanted: A Mussolini," ...certain powerful interests wanted to establish a dictatorship, this time mentioning two meetings-the first, called by Young, of bankers and industrialists in New York, the second in Chicago-to explore the possibilities".

In the February 13, 1933 issue of Barron's, the hope that FDR might be an "American Mussolini" was extolled. The examples continue, but I'll move on.

Some very interesting definitions of both Nazism and Fascism are given in this book. It will be difficult for many of us to discern their differences from today's government in the US. For example, in his very famous book, "As We Go Marching" published in 1944, author John T. Flynn enumerates eight attributes of fascism as follows:

1. a government with unrestrained powers
2. a dictator with unlimited powers
3. an economic system with private owners carrying out production and distribution under the auspices of a government plan
4. economic planning controlled by "great government bureaus" whose pronouncements had the force of law
5. a socialization of investment that "regiments" the uses of private captial and integrates government and private finance.
6. govenment maintenance of an adequate purchasing power by a permanent system of borrowing and spending
7. permanent militarism-supported by public spending
8. imperialism to provide a cause that could justify the great sacrifices of the people

HOW MANY OF THESE EIGHT EXIST IN THE US TODAY?

In fact, a weekly newsletter called "Facts and Fascism", points out Alpers, proclaimed that "America was in danger of losing to fascism at home". "Facts and Fascism" journalist George Seldes wrote, according to Alpers that "The real Fascists of America are never named in the commercial press....the Dupont, Ford, Hearst, Mellon and Rockefeller Empires...I call these elements Fascist".

Of course, these billionaires aren't mentioned in the press because they are part of the "cultural producers" elitist clubs.

Thorough in his research, Alpers includes a very relevant discussion of former Frankfurt School thinker, Erich Fromm. (Fromm is such an expert on the subtle conditioning of the mind, that he has an Afterword essay in the Centennial Edition of George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four").

Describing Fromm as the most intellectually significant among the thinkers to view dictatorship, Alpers includes a quote from Fromm's "Escape from Freedom": "Modern advertising, newspapers, and electoral politics all added to this sense of alienation and automation. This proliferation of authorities led people to develop "pseudo-selves," mouthing received opinion without ever thinking critically. The pseudo-self emerged not because people were told to think the wrong things, but simply because they were told-and were willing to be told-what to think. All of this led to the attraction of the regimented crowd".

And finally (insofar as this review is concerned) Alpers discusses the real purpose of Orson Wells' radio broadcast of H.G. Wells "The War of the Worlds" on October 30, 1938. (The significance of this broadcast is also mentioned in the book, Don't Weep for Me, America: How Democracy in America Became the Prince (While We Slept). In relation to Erich Fromm's theory above, this broadcast was connected to the debate about the causes of the regimented crowd. The federal government hired Hadley Cantril to study the panic caused by the broadcast. Cantril published his findings in "The Invasion from Mars". Cantril, according to Alpers, "felt that the panic was an indication of how easily the United States might fall victim to dictatorial propaganda...the audience's willingness to believe what the broadcast appeared to be telling it could be the first necessasry ingredient for such a [regimented] crowd to form". Here is the scary part: "Cantril hypothesized that some people lacked the critical ability or skepticism needed to disbelieve what the radio was telling them".

And THIS, my fellow readers, is what we have today: 300 million people believing what they hear from the establishment media, when in fact, it is only what they are intended to hear. Truth has nothing to do with it, see my review of U.S. Television News and Cold War Propaganda, 1947-1960 (Cambridge Studies in the History of Mass Communication).