Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bundespraesident.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 110 posts

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

#71

Post by mb4nck »

luckylion wrote: post #66
notkaiho wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Term limits, though. :)

Which is interesting, because those aren't common in Germany. For the Bundespräsident, they have another interesting thing: there are no limits on how many terms you serve, you just can't serve more than two in a row.

But that's also true for e.g. the US and russian presidents, no? Except those actually hold real power.

In practise, most german presidents will just be way too old four years after they leave office to be a viable candidate, and it looks a bit absurd for them to be pushed back into the office, exactly because there's very little real power.

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

#72

Post by hef19898 »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #19
jacobush wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably a reference to immigration and how it (in their view) only benefited Capital owners.

Is it taboo in Germany to suggest that increasing the supply of labour would drive down the price?

Overall, Germany profited greatly from the EU and the Euro. Also average workers. There is a group of employees in very precerious conditions, heritage of Agenda 2020. Nothing taboo to talk about, in fact ALG 2 and such are quite often discussed and challenged.

Both factors have nothing to do with "German Guilt", implying that is a right wing thing. And not grounded in reality.

Given that Weizsaeckers speach was all about accepting history, tolerance and so on, it would be fair to say if anything he would call for unity against racism, nationalism and so on.

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

#73

Post by chewz »

burger_moon wrote: post #25

Since we're on the topic of Germany WWII. I read a couple books about Treblinka over the weekend. The atrocities that happened there were sickening. To read about what these people were forced to do there in this death camp is painful. The Germans and Ukrainians who did these horrific acts of murder and torture were unaffected by it, as told by two authors who survived. It leaves me with more questions than answers.…

If you are interested in the topic read - Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland

> Christopher R. Browning’s shocking account of how a unit of average middle-aged Germans became the cold-blooded murderers of tens of thousands of Jews

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/647492.Ordinary_Men

https://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Soluti...

> The first mass murder takes place in a Polish town called Jozefow. The commander of the unit was teary-eyed and choked up when he gave the order to his men. Accounts hold that he even gave them a way out, stating that if any man didn’t think they were up for the challenge (of murdering thousands of Jews on that day), they were free to step down. About twelve men (among hundreds) decided to step down and opt out of the killing.

> Ultimately, these bakers, salesmen, and police officers were directly responsible for the deaths of 38,000 men, women and children through mass-shootings, and another 45,200 through collecting people from the ghettos and forcing them onto trains for Treblinka (a Nazi extermination camp).

> Browning offers up a variety of reasons that these ordinary men participated in genocide, some more pertinent than others. Among those reasons are deference to authority, psychological need for conformity, fear of a brutal regime, fear of looking “weak” in front of other members of the battalion, detachment from the people they were killing, and indoctrination via the Nazi propaganda machine. None of these individual reasons would have been enough to drive ordinary men to mass murder, but altogether, the reasons became enough for many of them.

Also Masters of Death: The SS-Einsatzgruppen and the Invention of the Holocaust is a good detailed telling of logic of events that lead to invention of extermination camps (it was easier on the consience of Einsatztruppen)

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16891.Masters_of_Death

PS. Also reading president Weizsäcker's speech kep in mind that Germany and Austria actively opposed justice upon perpetrators of Holocaust and other war crimes in the East.

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

#74

Post by munificent »

untog wrote: post #27
realradicalwash wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be sure that the passage is not misinterpreted (not saying you do, OP): This was not said to excuse the Germans from the responsibility of facing their history. I can personally be not guilty and yet, by being part of a society that builds on a troubled past, bear the responsibilities that come with that past (responsibility to do better, reparations, making amends, and alike). And in this spirit, Weizaecker…

> This point can imv be applied to many historical failings and their long lasting legacies. Feels particularly resonant at this point in the United States. I've heard the argument before that slavery was abolished long ago, so it's time to move on. Unfortunately to the contrary: the effects are still with us. That doesn't mean us white folks have to assume personal guilt as if we held slaves ourselves, but we should…

The Black Lives Matter protests have spawned a number of interesting conversations with my kids. One is on the difference between "fault" and "responsibility". They are similar: both imply an obligation to make amends or otherwise fix a problem.

"Fault" means you are responsible because you caused the problem. You break it, you fix it.

But as we get older and take on a greater share of the burdens and rewards of social connections and community, we become responsible for things that are not our fault. If my stove breaks, I am responsible for fixing it. I didn't break it—stuff just breaks on its own sometimes—but I own it, and ownership comes with that responsibility.

I see many people who, maybe from a lack of maturity, don't understand you can carry responsibility without fault. I think part of the pushback against Black Lives Matter is that when you tell white Americans that they are now responsible for systemic racism and the injustices of America's past, they hear that as "you should feel guilty for these". They get angry because they don't think it's fair that they should feel bad for something that isn't their fault.

Black Lives Matter is not about saying that most white people today personally caused most of the problems black people face (though there are certainly a minor of awful racist people who do). It's about acknowledging that having ownership of all of the many many benefits of being a white American today comes with some responsibilities as well. If life is a videogame, it's like we're playing the game in easy mode and we spawned with a bunch of free loot. It's not our fault that others didn't spawn so lucky, but we do have the loot and it carries the responsibility that we use it to help lift up others.

Our privilege is not supposed to be a source of guilt or shame, but a duty and opportunity to use it to help others.

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

#75

Post by hef19898 »

hef19898 wrote: post #6
anpKA wrote: post #5

It is a famous and well written speech, made at a time when Germany was still a cohesive country and WWII criminals were still alive. I don't see the relevance when we face completely different issues nowadays. European/German guilt has been used to justify a lot of measures that strangely enough always benefited the upper class and the stock market. Perhaps there should be a new Weizsaecker speech.

Different issues, still generally applicable principles. Yes, there should be a new Wiezsaecker speech. I just doubt it would be what you think, considering your views on "German/European guilt".

German Guilt is in someways the modern day equivalent of the "Dolchstosslegende" after WWI. It either something to frown upon, for the right, as Germany didn't do anything wrong, the Russians would have attacked anyway, blabla. Or to pay of by becoming an idealistic pacifist society, going along with everything just to pay back on the world in general.

Both points are wrong so. And lately it is mostly used by the right to attack any non-nationalistic policy. Weizsaecker called that out, didn't he? With the passage of individual guilt and accepting legacy.

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

#76

Post by mercer »

eruci wrote: post #64

Guilt over past crimes is mainly a western thing. There is for example, no such thing in modern Turkey over the extermination of the native peoples of Anatolia which led to the formation of the Turkish state with a uniform religious/ethnic composition. On the contrary, that is a source of national pride these days. Other examples abound (India, Pakistan, China, etc)

What are you arguing for, exactly? It sounds like you're somehow trying to justify extermination?

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

#77

Post by mengibar10 »

eruci wrote: post #64

Guilt over past crimes is mainly a western thing. There is for example, no such thing in modern Turkey over the extermination of the native peoples of Anatolia which led to the formation of the Turkish state with a uniform religious/ethnic composition. On the contrary, that is a source of national pride these days. Other examples abound (India, Pakistan, China, etc)

That's how it looks if you oversimplify history and do it with only one sentence. Turks started to migrate into Anatolia about 600 AD. However, the most defining moment and the most known turning point is the Battle of Menzikert in 1071. This puts at least 1000 years of slow demographic change.

We can argue a lot of details about how it happened. But it is better to stick to your main argument that the guilt over past crimes is mainly a Western thing. That could not be further than the truth. That's where I object mainly. Such demographic changes happened much faster and more brutal in the West by the Western people. Both North and South American continents that are tens of times larger areas than Anatolia has seen genocidal change for a much shorter period of time for much bigger population. It is estimated that the populate in North America was comparable to that of Europe when "discoveries" started. I do not see such guilt proportional to what happened.

You may think that those are a bit in the past. How about French and Belgian colonialism. The crimes committed by Belgian in Kongo pales even that of Germans. The most conservative figure is that Belgians killed 10 Million people. The upper estimate is about 40M. Why we do not hear about those crimes as much as about what Germans did ? Kongolese are not human? or this much emphasis serve a political agenda?

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

#78

Post by luckylion »

mb4nck wrote: post #71
luckylion wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is interesting, because those aren't common in Germany. For the Bundespräsident, they have another interesting thing: there are no limits on how many terms you serve, you just can't serve more than two in a row.

But that's also true for e.g. the US and russian presidents, no? Except those actually hold real power. In practise, most german presidents will just be way too old four years after they leave office to be a viable candidate, and it looks a bit absurd for them to be pushed back into the office, exactly because there's very little real power.

I don't think it's possible for the US president, they are limited to 10 years (two terms + two years if they were vice president and became acting president) which, afaik, is per life-time.

I agree though, it's not an issue, precisely because the German president has historically not acted partisan (even though he's usually a member of a party) and not be involved in day-to-day politics, so it's not too hard to find somebody that everybody can agree on. This may change if the office becomes more politicized, but I doubt we'll see somebody get re-elected after having paused for a term.

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

#79

Post by goto11 »

fsloth wrote: post #69
goto11 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone dismiss it as slander? Eradication of Jews had been the stated goal of the Nazi party from the beginning. Progroms like kristallnacht was used as propaganda for the Nazi party. The Nuremberg laws was a matter of public record.

"Why would anyone dismiss it as slander?" Because in WW1 the English and French governments manufactured propaganda that claimed all sorts of preposterously horrible things were perpetrated by the germans. After the war (WW1) it became obvious they were mostly extremely exaggerated lies. That's why in WW2 it was initiallly very hard to start discussion about this. "You know, in last war we claimed the germans were co…

Yes but the comment was about people inside Germany. I can understand if people outside Germany who hadn't been exposed to Nazi propaganda could believe it was run-of-the-mill wartime slander of the enemy.

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

#80

Post by ajTHak »

hef19898 wrote: post #72
SuoDuanDao wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it taboo in Germany to suggest that increasing the supply of labour would drive down the price?

Overall, Germany profited greatly from the EU and the Euro. Also average workers. There is a group of employees in very precerious conditions, heritage of Agenda 2020. Nothing taboo to talk about, in fact ALG 2 and such are quite often discussed and challenged. Both factors have nothing to do with "German Guilt", implying that is a right wing thing. And not grounded in reality. Given that Weizsaeckers speach was all…

No such thing has been implied, but you are only attacking straw men in this subthread (Dolchstosslegende, really?),

European guilt (countries fighting each other since the beginning of time) has been used as a justification for the European Union.

German guilt has been used as a justification for the Euro.

The theory that average workers benefit from the Euro is false, and usually only propagated by those in cozy government positions, like bureaucrats or teachers who are isolated from reality.

> implying that is a right wing thing.

And there we go, such a position is literally fascist.

Post reply on HN