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

81–90 of 110 posts

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

#81

Post by mengibar10 »

mercer wrote: post #76
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?

I am not sure if this question directed to my comment above since you did not ask it under that thread. But if it were a mistake I am happy to answer and it is a big NO. Please read my comment again.

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

#82

Post by chewz »

List of major perpetrators of the Holocaust

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

Massacres and war crimes of World War II by location

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_war_crimes#Massacres_an...

War crimes of the Wehrmacht

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

Myth of the clean Wehrmacht

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

German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war

> It is estimated that at least 3.3 million Soviet POWs died in Nazi custody, out of 5.7 million.

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

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

#83

Post by goto11 »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #60
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.

Again, that does not ring true given the conversations I've had with people alive at the time. Jewish people were scapegoated for the destruction of the German economy. Not everyone who accepted that narrative would have believed death was a just response. Any competent propagandist would have left the question of what a proper response was open so people would have imagined that what they thought was proper would ha…

> Again, that does not ring true given the conversations I've had with people alive at the time.

Have you considered that these people might have an interest in downplaying how much they knew?

> The closest modern equivalent I can think of would be Occupy Wall Street.

You should be ashamed of yourself for making that comparison.

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

#84

Post by redwood »

goto11 wrote: post #55
SuoDuanDao wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It also seems to suggest that the German people couldn’t know what atrocities were being committed, which it was well known what was going on. On this point, as someone whose grandparents lived through the German side of WW2, I am convinced it's allied propaganda used to justify the collective guilt of the German people. I don't doubt it was well known to the Jewish population in America at the time, but any news of…

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.

I think it's a question of whether your family lived in a town with Jews.

Jews tended to be city people so I would expect rural folks to have been fairly ignorant of what was going on.

However German city people could not miss the persecution of a large portion of their cities.

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

#85

Post by notkaiho »

luckylion wrote: post #78
mb4nck wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's correct - a US president cannot serve more than two terms. If they were already acting as President for two or more years, they can only be elected to the position once. This was codified in the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

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

#86

Post by goto11 »

redwood wrote: post #84
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.

I think it's a question of whether your family lived in a town with Jews. Jews tended to be city people so I would expect rural folks to have been fairly ignorant of what was going on. However German city people could not miss the persecution of a large portion of their cities.

Progroms like Kristallnacht were widely publicized by Nazi media (the word "Kristallnacht" itself was coined by Nazi propaganda). So it is not like you only knew about the persecutions if you had Jewish neighbors. The party itself made sure everybody knew about the persecutions.

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

#87

Post by kmonsen »

lefstathiou wrote: post #68
kmonsen wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US also needs at some point to acknowledge it's past evils. Perhaps no penance is needed, but it is need to acknowledge the evils of the confederacy (and many other things like redlining, but I feel those are widely believed as wrong today). We as a country need our own truth and reconciliation commission.

Out of curiosity what does “acknowledge” mean to you? I want to do my part to acknowledge, just want to make sure we are aligned on definitions.

I'm not too into the specifics, but if you are interested take a listen to Bryan Stevenson: https://www.npr.org/books/authors/356964348/bryan-stevenson https://www.vox.com/2017/5/24/15675606/bryan-stevenson-confe...

Short story: Having confederate monuments and the way history is thought in schools in some places is for sure a start. We need to get away from the south did nothing wrong, and of course put focus on what the north did wrong as well. There is a reason Minnesota is not the best place to live for black people.

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

#88

Post by luckylion »

mengibar10 wrote: post #77
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 pas…

> 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.

Well.. I mean, Turkey has a few more recent genocidal episodes that regularly lead to diplomatic issues because it's taboo to mention.

I'd agree with "mainly Western" though certainly not "only Western".

> You may think that those are a bit in the past. How about French and Belgian colonialism.

That's pretty text book What-Aboutism, but I from all I hear from French friends, French colonialism is very much public knowledge and is taught in schools. Not quite as focused as in Germany where the Nazi era is the main focus of history in schools, but certainly not anywhere close to unheard of.

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

#89

Post by eruci »

mercer wrote: post #76
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?

I'm not. I'm just stating the sad fact that acknowledgement of past crimes is mostly done in western democracies. I've never seen, for example, a similar speech by a Turkish, Chinese or Pakistani politician about the crimes committed in the name of their nation state and the collective myths used to keep it all together.

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

#90

Post by SuoDuanDao »

goto11 wrote: post #83
SuoDuanDao wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, that does not ring true given the conversations I've had with people alive at the time. Jewish people were scapegoated for the destruction of the German economy. Not everyone who accepted that narrative would have believed death was a just response. Any competent propagandist would have left the question of what a proper response was open so people would have imagined that what they thought was proper would ha…

> Again, that does not ring true given the conversations I've had with people alive at the time. Have you considered that these people might have an interest in downplaying how much they knew? > The closest modern equivalent I can think of would be Occupy Wall Street. You should be ashamed of yourself for making that comparison.

>Have you considered that these people might have an interest in downplaying how much they knew?

Certainly, and I've also considered that an army which killed civilians during the war would be interested in playing up how much the civilians knew. I've listened to both sides and made my decision which story sounds more plausible.

>You should be ashamed of yourself for making that comparison.

If I wasn't clear, I was talking about the conditions that gave rise to the ideology, not the ideologies themselves. We are very lucky that racial and economic resentments have stayed mostly decoupled since the second world war. I am not remotely ashamed for describing how similar a modern example is to half of that wicked formula.

To me, taking responsibility for my ancestors has nothing to do with paying blood money and everything to do with remaining vigilant to familiar precursors. I'd be ashamed for staying silent if I see a modern parallel.

Post reply on HN