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

101–110 of 110 posts

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

#101

Post by markvdb »

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.…

You may want to read the wartime letters of the German writer Heinrich Böll. A rather unique perspective on WWII by a conscripted soldier who would later become a Nobel prize winner.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_B%C3%B6ll

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

#102

Post by ihm »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #90
goto11 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

You are comparing the blaming bankers who were actually responsible for the financial crisis to the scapegooating of Jews in Nazi Germany, and this was the closest modern example you could think of in a world where e.g., there are concentration camps on the American-Mexican border.

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

#103

Post by greedo »

ihm wrote: post #61
coldcode wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying that the German people all knew of what was being done is not historical, nor the experience of my family. When my great grandparents were taken from their home in 1943 along with all the other Jews in town (other than my Grandmother who was married to a non-Jew, and my mother) they had no idea where they were being taken. Of course they all died but no one had any idea until after the war was over and even to…

> To say everyone knew is incorrect; to imagine you could change things if you knew is also wrong. Can we today stop our government from cramming children into cages and then forgetting them? Yet we have modern media and still horrific things are done in our name and we either ignore it or feel helpless to do anything. I agree with this point and take your criticism that I painted with too broad a brush in terms of w…

If you haven't already, you should read Daniel Goldhagen's book, "Hitler's Willing Executioners."

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

#104

Post by senderista »

the_af wrote: post #34
zeveb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The USSR ethnically cleansed Germany in response? What? 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 clea…

> Two wrongs do not make a right, and mass murder of innocent civilians is always wrong. Fully agreed. It's hard to see the two events as similar, though. The scale (and intent) alone is mind-boggingly different. The Germans intended to wipe out Slavs (and other undesirables), and you couldn't opt out of this by swallowing the party line or swearing allegiance to Germany (just as you couldn't opt out of being a Jew -…

> There was no plan to ethnically cleanse them to make room for Soviet citizens in German land.

Do the words "East Prussia" ring a bell? How about "Königsberg"?

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

#105

Post by the_af »

senderista wrote: post #104
the_af wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Two wrongs do not make a right, and mass murder of innocent civilians is always wrong. Fully agreed. It's hard to see the two events as similar, though. The scale (and intent) alone is mind-boggingly different. The Germans intended to wipe out Slavs (and other undesirables), and you couldn't opt out of this by swallowing the party line or swearing allegiance to Germany (just as you couldn't opt out of being a Jew -…

> There was no plan to ethnically cleanse them to make room for Soviet citizens in German land. Do the words "East Prussia" ring a bell? How about "Königsberg"?

Yes, I'm familiar with the massacre. As horrific as it was, these weren't cases of ethnic cleansing. There was no intent to remove Germans from the face of the Earth, like Generalplan Ost was in regards to Slavs.

We know this. How? Because the Nazis stated they wanted Slavs killed, but when the Soviets took over East Germany, they didn't wipe out all Germans (as they would have done, had they been bent on racial genocide as the Nazis were).

This is the one example were we can clearly compare plans and see outcomes, and how they differed. Even the scales are orders or magnitude different!

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

#106

Post by fsloth »

goto11 wrote: post #79
fsloth wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I think you are approaching this from a position of afterwisdom.

Case in point: Think how hard it was for the general american to realize the police in their country actually has pathological violent tendencies and blacks actually are in a weak position. If modern state is able to treat their minorities in that way in our enlightened age for a long time, think about what the chances the public had in WW2 Germany to have a clue.

Generally, Germans trusted their government. The Nazi propaganda was astoundingly enticing (there were excellent books on WW1 propaganda that the Nazi:s studied from in earnest so they learned from existing knowledge).

How good was the Nazi propaganda? People are still today falling in love with the concept, even though the Nazi idealism was proven evil and non-functional, and fascism itself inserted to modern day would be extremely anachronistic.

Think about it. People are falling in love with a brand and ideology created by people who died 70+ years ago.

Now imagine these same people are running a country. Portraying themselves as glorious leaders, and saying to all germans - hell yes, we will triumph, love us. And love they did.

They have total pulse on the public sentiment. They control the mass media (they have mass media! Which is itself a novelty!). They control the public image of the state and they control the public mindset. They control the public news and what people are concerned off.

I presume the public sentiment was along the lines of "So, they are moving those jews somewhere? Oh, better in some 'jewtown' rather than here in that ghetto, I'm glad I don't have to see them again". But I doubt they had in mind the slaughterhouse.

It was horror what happened. But it is very hard to convince me the average german would have had any clue.

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

#107

Post by goto11 »

fsloth wrote: post #106
goto11 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you are approaching this from a position of afterwisdom. Case in point: Think how hard it was for the general american to realize the police in their country actually has pathological violent tendencies and blacks actually are in a weak position. If modern state is able to treat their minorities in that way in our enlightened age for a long time, think about what the chances the public had in WW2 Germany to h…

I'm not sure I understand your argument, but are you suggesting the effectiveness of Nazi propaganda and media control as justifying that people didn't know? Because that is totally backwards. Persecution of Jews was not some kind of secret agenda kept hidden from the people. Rather the hate and persecution of Jews and other "undesired groups" was a core part of Nazi propaganda.

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

#109

Post by amai »

Sentences made for eternity:

"Hitler's constant approach was to stir up prejudices, enmity and hatred. What is asked of young people today is this: do not let yourselves be forced into enmity and hatred of other people, of Russians or Americans, Jews or Turks, of alternatives or conservatives, blacks or whites. Learn to live together, not in opposition to each other."

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

#110

Post by fsloth »

goto11 wrote: post #107
fsloth wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are approaching this from a position of afterwisdom. Case in point: Think how hard it was for the general american to realize the police in their country actually has pathological violent tendencies and blacks actually are in a weak position. If modern state is able to treat their minorities in that way in our enlightened age for a long time, think about what the chances the public had in WW2 Germany to h…

I'm not sure I understand your argument, but are you suggesting the effectiveness of Nazi propaganda and media control as justifying that people didn't know? Because that is totally backwards. Persecution of Jews was not some kind of secret agenda kept hidden from the people. Rather the hate and persecution of Jews and other "undesired groups" was a core part of Nazi propaganda.

"hate and persecution of Jews and other "undesired groups" was a core part of Nazi propaganda."

Hate and persecution of all minorities in europe was the expected status quo even after the war. Only after 60's you are seeing minority group rights becoming a thing, and they are still problematic in places.

Nazi's total genocide was the thing that was completely out of bounds of accepted civilized behaviour circa 1940. Not racism.

"Everyone did it" is not an excuse, but on basic expectations most of europe was racist and oprressive of minorities. German people were not worse than anyone else.

I'm not saying that this excuses anything, but the claim that "on average, they weren't worse than anyone else" holds.

The guilt for the genocide should be mostly on the shoulders of the administration and the officers who carried it out, not the average German citizen.

Post reply on HN