Weizsäcker's speech on 40th anniversary of WW2's end (1985)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_German...

In particular, postwar Poland basically moved west: the Soviet Union kept the 77.6 thousand square miles of Polish territory it had captured when both Germany and Russia partitioned it in 1939, while Poland was given 48.1 thousand miles of German territory. The Soviet-backed Polish government cleansed the formerly-German territories of ethnic Germans.

Given the far worse behaviour of Germany during the war (I believe most Germans survived the ethnic cleansing committed by Poland, while the goal of Nazi Germany was extermination of the Poles), it can be a bit difficult to care about the suffering of Germans. But consider that IIRC roughly two million Germans died in the expulsions from Poland and other countries, and no doubt at least a few of those were innocent women and children (as, of course, were many of Nazi Germany's victims). Two wrongs do not make a right, and mass murder of innocent civilians is always wrong.

But back then the speech was considered to be brave, not preaching to the choir.

Throughout the sixties and seventies Germans had a tendency to paint themselves the victims. Maybe not as much as the Jews, but still, the Allied Occupation was so terrible, Red Armists raping every woman, woe be us.

Weizsäcker drew lots of criticism for articulating the point that the Third Reich wasn't some pretty well-functioning state with just the little side-effect of mass murder. That the Allies shouldn't have been so harsh, why couldn't they just remove the concentration camps and let society go on?

He saw the Nazi rule as an imposition on the German people, not in way of exculpation, but as a way to accept the defeat and move on, trying to build a better world.

You're right that most Germans knew about the atrocities. Research is very clear on that point. But it wasn't really emotionally accepted, especially in conservative circles. That speech was one little turning point, as was Brandt's fall to his knees (tabloids labelled him a traitor, for something that seems obviously right now).

I suppose he could have been more direct. But I suspect he and his people had gauged the public sentiment very well. Say too much, and nobody cares about what you said. Say too little, and you're not doing anything. The speech had a huge impact, and I guess that proves it right, maybe not from an absolute ethical point of view, but from a political and contemporary point of view.

Richard von Weizsäcker was President of Germany from mid 80s to mid 90s. The President of Germany is, simply put, like British Monarchy. In practice he has mostly a representative role. As a president Weizsäcker was well popular in Germany and neither was reclusive nor caused any scandals, which cannot be said about later presidents.

Are you sure that you're not mixing up that position being wrong with it being taboo? It seems to have become very popular these days, especially among the alt right, to blame the ridicule and ignoring of their opinions on the "PC mainstream" having labelled them as taboo or "censoring" them. Projecting snowflakes like they've time and time been shown to be.