The posts in this thread are beginning to drift. Stay with the general topic or we'll need to lock the thread. I could see this coming from the outset.
Thanks, Moderator
KEEPING THE FAITH!
Moderator: Moderator
Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
) would be the answer.
-
Scott
- Valued contributor
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: RT 88 - West of the Pecos
- Contact:
Thanks for the indulgence of the Moderator. I will try to be a little more focused.
Mr. Wilf made an interesting comment about Auschwitz--I would call it "Battleship Auschwitz" in this sense--being needed to be worn as a badge on the sleeve by Germans, nowadays. I would like to explore that idea a little bit. Comments?
Mr. Hebden also made a comment about the modern German being concerned more with modern life or American materialism or whatever than the old ideas of Blood and Soil. I would like to explore that idea or what it means also. Comments?
We can open additional threads if necessary. Any insights appreciated.
Mr. Wilf made an interesting comment about Auschwitz--I would call it "Battleship Auschwitz" in this sense--being needed to be worn as a badge on the sleeve by Germans, nowadays. I would like to explore that idea a little bit. Comments?
Mr. Hebden also made a comment about the modern German being concerned more with modern life or American materialism or whatever than the old ideas of Blood and Soil. I would like to explore that idea or what it means also. Comments?
We can open additional threads if necessary. Any insights appreciated.
Thank you Moderator, I’ll try not to get carried away.
To Hebden, no I don’t, although we, my wife and I, visit from time to time, as long as I still can, what with my views an all... And please Gentlemen, just Wilf, forget the Mr.
Now to the query of Scott Smith, which I raised, about Auschwitz as a badge for the German left. I’m not, of course , a spokesman for them, just my own observations. I have no idea why they defend the official version of events tooth and nail, no questions asked. Some of them don’t believe, to this day, that the death toll in Auschwitz was revised down from 4 to app. 1 million. One possibility, maybe it’s guilt, if the left would have stood united in1932, and before, Hitler’s chances of becoming Chancellor would have been bleak. But I’m sure it’s more complicated than that. My guess, they believe things wouldn’t have unfolded as they did if the Weimar Repulik would have survived. It could only happen with a right wing government. But if they think that, they are wrong, the NSDAP was a socialist movement, just look at all the workers benefits. Lately, a few cracks have appeared. Günter Grass started it with his novel about the Gustloff, and now “Der Brand”, a book about the murderous bombings of civilians in German cities. As well, the issue of the refugees from Silesia, Bohemia, Moravia etc. has been raised. The more zealous of the left dismiss this as rabble, view it as an insult. Again, why? I have no clue. I’ll try and find that “Spiegel” piece and translate it. Comments?
Wilf
To Hebden, no I don’t, although we, my wife and I, visit from time to time, as long as I still can, what with my views an all... And please Gentlemen, just Wilf, forget the Mr.
Now to the query of Scott Smith, which I raised, about Auschwitz as a badge for the German left. I’m not, of course , a spokesman for them, just my own observations. I have no idea why they defend the official version of events tooth and nail, no questions asked. Some of them don’t believe, to this day, that the death toll in Auschwitz was revised down from 4 to app. 1 million. One possibility, maybe it’s guilt, if the left would have stood united in1932, and before, Hitler’s chances of becoming Chancellor would have been bleak. But I’m sure it’s more complicated than that. My guess, they believe things wouldn’t have unfolded as they did if the Weimar Repulik would have survived. It could only happen with a right wing government. But if they think that, they are wrong, the NSDAP was a socialist movement, just look at all the workers benefits. Lately, a few cracks have appeared. Günter Grass started it with his novel about the Gustloff, and now “Der Brand”, a book about the murderous bombings of civilians in German cities. As well, the issue of the refugees from Silesia, Bohemia, Moravia etc. has been raised. The more zealous of the left dismiss this as rabble, view it as an insult. Again, why? I have no clue. I’ll try and find that “Spiegel” piece and translate it. Comments?
Wilf
-
Scott
- Valued contributor
- Posts: 310
- Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2002 7:00 am
- Location: RT 88 - West of the Pecos
- Contact:
Thanks, those are just the perspectives that I want. I think there was little of the Weimar Republic worth saving, but on the other hand, with the Third Reich leading to war it couldn't have turned out any worse. Would things have turned out better with Hitler dropping dead in 1933, I don't know. Once it came to world war--which Hitler deemed as inevitable--the outcome was all but foregone. I don't see how the Bundestablishment can justify their Thoughtcrimes laws, however. They are just making monkeys out of themselves and it can lead to no good. Canada is one thing but Germans unable to ask their OWN questions is just pathetic.
Scott wrote: I think the Germans simply have the mentality of a defeated people […]
This really hits the nail on the head in my opinion. It explains a lot about the reactions and philosophies of certain “Germano Holocaust defenders”.
The mentality of a defeated nation.
Did the Japanese also develop such a mentality after they lost the war, I wonder? After their war crime trials were over in 1949 the whole matter was over. And in fact they honor the grave sites of the executed Japanese war criminals.
Scott wrote: Mr. Wilf made an interesting comment about Auschwitz--I would call it "Battleship Auschwitz" in this sense--being needed to be worn as a badge on the sleeve by Germans, nowadays. I would like to explore that idea a little bit.
This comment was probably deleted and I missed it, as usual.
The German magazine “Der Spiegel” had last year articles about Dresden, about the bombings of German cities, about the refugees from the eastern parts of Germany and about the Gustloff (a German ship with about 10,000 refugees which was sunk by the Soviet submarine S-13 with I believe 5 torpedoes in a shallow part of the Baltic Sea in 1945).
In all cases the magazine mentioned repeatedly Auschwitz, in a sort of a self-flagellating way (We are sinners too and deserved therefore all these mishaps).
Disgusting.
Mr. Hebden also made a comment about the modern German being concerned more with modern life or American materialism or whatever than the old ideas of Blood and Soil. I would like to explore that idea or what it means also. Comments?
I don’t live in Germany either anymore. Once a year or so for a visit may be. It is my impression that life there is very similar to here in the US now. At one time they had a little more social security may be. But that is gone I think. It seems that the system was abused.
This old idea of “Blood and Soil” (was it not “Blood and Honor”?), I don’t know anything about. Before Hitler there was a hell of an economic depression, a fight for survival which gradually improved during Hitler’s time. We were all quite poor then.
I remember that we had each year a collection in school during veteran’s day in order to fund the maintenance of the cemeteries of German soldiers killed during the First World War: A badge was 1 penny, or a blue candle was 2 pennies. One penny was all my mother could effort, and how much did I want that blue candle!
There was a lot of bitterness about the treaty of Versailles. As present German children (I assume) are taught in school about the Holocaust, then students learned about Versailles. Starting with the first grade in elementary school. Germans called themselves "der deutsche Michel", a dumb but innocent sucker.
Today Germans seem to be more interested in the “good life” (like most other people): Good food, fast automobiles, a lot of vacation and a lot of traveling. And:
Their present Kanzler is married for the fourth time, and rumors are that the fifth may not be too far away!
Ok, I’ve found that “Spiegel” article, it is from Aug. 23.1998, a bit old but still relevant, IMHO
Title: “Lesarten der Sühne (Variances of penance), The Holocaust as doctrine substitute for the left,
written by the Berlin historian Heinrich August Winkler“. It is a rather lengthy piece and I’m not a good translator, as well, some words have no exact equal in English, so here are some highlights:
“ On Dec. 18.1989, at the SPD (German Socialist Party) Congress in Berlin, Willy Brand, in his speech said something that made the majority of the members grasp for air: ’Even the biggest liability of a nation can not be wiped out by it’s infinite division’. Following a Treaty between the BRD and the GDR, in 1973, the German Intelligentsia became more and more convinced that the division of Germany had to be accepted as the punishment for Auschwitz. The biggest extermination camp became the symbol of the disastrous German Nationalistic politic since Bismarck’s founding of the Reich in 1871. The Germans could only be absolve if they stopped being a nation, feel like a Volk and become good World Citizens, Europeans, instead. The thesis, the division was punishment for Auschwitz became the lie their doctrine was based on, contrary to the from Adenauer formed policy that unification must be the primary goal. Nolte started a dispute amongst historians in 1986 when he suggested that the National Socialists acted in self defence against the Bolshevists. That’s when the left started their about-face, unnoticed by most. The BRD was no longer a new form of Fascism ( J. Fischer, acting German Foreign Minister, fought street battles with the authorities trying to over through the government. Wilf.) but a stroke of luck for Germany. The orientation towards the west, fought against tooth and nail by Kurt Schumacher, Gustav Heinemann et al, now became an achievement of the left. Looking back, we, the liberal left, perhaps took the easy way out of the historian dispute. The mandatory rebuke of Nolte lead to the erection of new taboos. Anyone suggesting a link between Communism and the rise of the extreme right was told he/she argues like Nolte. Anybody who spoke of Communist crimes was called a Auschwitz apologiser, equating ’red’ and ’brown’. Nevertheless, Germany is, since 1990, a unified nation and the West-German left, who was convinced the nation thing was dealt with, are still in shock. Would this not be the time to admit that there is a way to deal with our past, aside from the rather crude version Nolte used? 1998, the 150th anniversary of the 1848 revolution could have been one of those occasions to find out if there is a connection between the founding of Germany in 1871 and the Holocaust, as J. Fischer asserts. But in all those countless memorials of the revolution no one mentioned that in a meeting in the Paulskirche in Frankfurt in 1848 a Greater Germany was proposed, including Austria, Trieste, Bohemia and Moravia which could have only been realized, if at all, through war. In contrast, Bismarck’s small German solution was rather modest, therefore, there is no straight line from Bismarck to Hitler, as Fischer suggests. . ..
The ongoing controversy over the French “Black Book of Communism” is another issue. On a get-together at a University in Berlin, the historian Wolfgang Wippermann said the book is an attempt to relativize the Holocaust and to discredit the left. Anti-fascism as unifier of the left, Auschwitz as party emblem. No matter what Stalin or Mao did, we don’t compare. But it is only a small step from real atonement to arrogance. (Finkelstein wrote much the same. Wilf) Wippermann’s credo:” We have to remain focused on the Holocaust “ has an religious sound, wrote Stefan Reinecke in the “taz” “Thou shalt have no Holocaust beside this one” . The meaning of this is that the Germans were chosen to commit the absolute crime and have therefore an obligation to defend this record. But this kind of Holocaust fixation is no different than the pseudo religious national pride. It is unlikely that a new German ideology will come from the scarifying of the Holocaust. Even the German left should know that separate excursions have been disastrous for Germany”.
Those are Mr. Winkler’s views. I think he makes sense. And if anyone thinks this is off topic, I beg to differ. We can write what we want on this forum, and I’m not belittling the efforts of the members, but if real change is to occur, it has to start in Germany. Sailor mentioned the ’Gustloff’ book by G. Grass. One has to remember that, not too long ago, Grass said something idiotic, like ’German history can only be viewed through the Holocaust. That’s why his book, suggesting German victim hood, caused such consternation. Maybe there is hope. This Iraq tragedy might set things in motion, who knows.
Wilf
Title: “Lesarten der Sühne (Variances of penance), The Holocaust as doctrine substitute for the left,
written by the Berlin historian Heinrich August Winkler“. It is a rather lengthy piece and I’m not a good translator, as well, some words have no exact equal in English, so here are some highlights:
“ On Dec. 18.1989, at the SPD (German Socialist Party) Congress in Berlin, Willy Brand, in his speech said something that made the majority of the members grasp for air: ’Even the biggest liability of a nation can not be wiped out by it’s infinite division’. Following a Treaty between the BRD and the GDR, in 1973, the German Intelligentsia became more and more convinced that the division of Germany had to be accepted as the punishment for Auschwitz. The biggest extermination camp became the symbol of the disastrous German Nationalistic politic since Bismarck’s founding of the Reich in 1871. The Germans could only be absolve if they stopped being a nation, feel like a Volk and become good World Citizens, Europeans, instead. The thesis, the division was punishment for Auschwitz became the lie their doctrine was based on, contrary to the from Adenauer formed policy that unification must be the primary goal. Nolte started a dispute amongst historians in 1986 when he suggested that the National Socialists acted in self defence against the Bolshevists. That’s when the left started their about-face, unnoticed by most. The BRD was no longer a new form of Fascism ( J. Fischer, acting German Foreign Minister, fought street battles with the authorities trying to over through the government. Wilf.) but a stroke of luck for Germany. The orientation towards the west, fought against tooth and nail by Kurt Schumacher, Gustav Heinemann et al, now became an achievement of the left. Looking back, we, the liberal left, perhaps took the easy way out of the historian dispute. The mandatory rebuke of Nolte lead to the erection of new taboos. Anyone suggesting a link between Communism and the rise of the extreme right was told he/she argues like Nolte. Anybody who spoke of Communist crimes was called a Auschwitz apologiser, equating ’red’ and ’brown’. Nevertheless, Germany is, since 1990, a unified nation and the West-German left, who was convinced the nation thing was dealt with, are still in shock. Would this not be the time to admit that there is a way to deal with our past, aside from the rather crude version Nolte used? 1998, the 150th anniversary of the 1848 revolution could have been one of those occasions to find out if there is a connection between the founding of Germany in 1871 and the Holocaust, as J. Fischer asserts. But in all those countless memorials of the revolution no one mentioned that in a meeting in the Paulskirche in Frankfurt in 1848 a Greater Germany was proposed, including Austria, Trieste, Bohemia and Moravia which could have only been realized, if at all, through war. In contrast, Bismarck’s small German solution was rather modest, therefore, there is no straight line from Bismarck to Hitler, as Fischer suggests. . ..
The ongoing controversy over the French “Black Book of Communism” is another issue. On a get-together at a University in Berlin, the historian Wolfgang Wippermann said the book is an attempt to relativize the Holocaust and to discredit the left. Anti-fascism as unifier of the left, Auschwitz as party emblem. No matter what Stalin or Mao did, we don’t compare. But it is only a small step from real atonement to arrogance. (Finkelstein wrote much the same. Wilf) Wippermann’s credo:” We have to remain focused on the Holocaust “ has an religious sound, wrote Stefan Reinecke in the “taz” “Thou shalt have no Holocaust beside this one” . The meaning of this is that the Germans were chosen to commit the absolute crime and have therefore an obligation to defend this record. But this kind of Holocaust fixation is no different than the pseudo religious national pride. It is unlikely that a new German ideology will come from the scarifying of the Holocaust. Even the German left should know that separate excursions have been disastrous for Germany”.
Those are Mr. Winkler’s views. I think he makes sense. And if anyone thinks this is off topic, I beg to differ. We can write what we want on this forum, and I’m not belittling the efforts of the members, but if real change is to occur, it has to start in Germany. Sailor mentioned the ’Gustloff’ book by G. Grass. One has to remember that, not too long ago, Grass said something idiotic, like ’German history can only be viewed through the Holocaust. That’s why his book, suggesting German victim hood, caused such consternation. Maybe there is hope. This Iraq tragedy might set things in motion, who knows.
Wilf
Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
