Skip to comments.Envoy Sent to London: Berlin Denies Rift with UK over WWI Centenary
Posted on 08/20/2013 1:44:13 AM PDT by Olog-hai
The German Foreign Ministry on Monday denied allegations that it was attempting to influence Britains plans to commemorate the 2014 centenary of the outbreak of World War I.
A spokesman for the ministry confirmed reports that it had sent an envoy to London in early August to discuss the centenary ceremonies. But he added: There was no intervention of any kind in how our friends and partners intend to shape their commemoration of World War I.
The Daily Telegraph reported on Sunday that the visit by Andreas Meitzner, a German diplomat tasked with coordinating European commemoration plans for the centenary, was prompted by German concerns that the ceremonies might have an excessively declamatory tone, placing more emphasis on victory rather than reconciliation.
The Daily Mail even reported that the envoy had been sent to prevent WWI victory celebrations altogether.
(Excerpt) Read more at spiegel.de ...
Germans do not want to celebrate the fact that they lost two world wars in a row. Let ‘em go celebrate cultural diversity and being flooded with Muslims over a beer.
Yah! Yah! Ve von de var you know!
In my view, WW1 was fought to a stalemate since the German homeland was not decisively occupied/defeated. The Kaiser had to accept terms of surrender where those were the larger defeat rather than was the battlefield defeat. This was where the seeds for WW2 were sown. At least the Allies learned from that and went for the full victory in WW2.
I live in a very small village in Bavaria. Every one of the surrounding villages has a church and near the church there is a "Denkmal", a monument, with a list of names on it attributed to the years from 1914 to 1918 and some to the years 1939 to 1945. The lists in both time periods are shockingly long when one compares their length to the diminutive size of the village.
Let me assure you that there is no celebration of either war. But it would be very small minded and quite ignorant to celebrate the victories over Germany as anything other than a great tragedy of history which could have and should have been avoided.
Why the sensitivity on the German side then?
The first world war is a century old and the second world war is now approaching three quarters of a century old. When I first moved to Germany I lived in the town which was renowned for its baths and accordingly was a place for the evolution of hospitals and rehabilitation centers. In 1989 the streets of this town were filled with men with white hair and one arm or one leg, veterans of World War II who were lucky enough to have survived. Today, these veterans are no longer to be seen on the streets of this town, virtually all of them having died out.
I tutor kids to help them pass their English and history exams and so they are anywhere from 17 to 20 years of age and their universal reply to whether they feel "guilt" for World War II, or for the Holocaust, is to observe that they were not even alive at that time. They feel no such guilt.
Likewise, I feel no guilt for slavery. Do you?
There are a thousand facts which historians have avoided, and the public tended to just skip....in a review of WWI.
We can bring up the murders of a couple members of the Hapsburg royal family (the Austrian-Hugarian Empire).
We can bring up the actual text of the Hapsburgs direct message to Serbia after the crown-prince was murdered on the streets. It really wasn’t anything different than what most countries would have expected. Serbia didn’t even pause to think over a couple of simple actions....they just went direct to Russia and enacted their secret defense treaty.
The French fell into this whole because they finally thought....with the Russians and English....they could win an actual war against Germany (three miserable defeats throughout the 1800s weren’t enough for them).
The Germans knew every single weakness of the Russians and exploited it. Communism only arrived....because the Germans allowed to be a apart of their entire strategy in defeating Russia.
Lousy military leadership and strategy from the British and French...accomplished almost nothing for the war.
And Wilson arriving for peace talks? He was marginally in any health to travel, and even less to focus on the issues. In the end....Wilson being there, merely triggered the causes for WW II to occur.
I’m kinda hoping for this anniversary next year to drag out all these topics and refocus history professors on the subject.
Oh, and I should add....after the war, and the US legislature all hyped up to look good....sat up the GI-bonus deal....roughly a $1 a day for each day of service, but payable around 1945 (two decades away). This single act....triggered the Anacosta Flats riots in DC, and condemned the Hoover campaign to loose in 1932. This event is almost completely lost in US history, but reshapes the nation with FDR and his failed economic policy.
“UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER”, something we have stopped doing.
With all due respect, those are nonsequiturs. Never mind the fact that they presume that all liberal stereotypes about white Americans to be true. We do not have any parallels here; there was never a civil war fought in Germany to extricate those who were hardcore adherents to the elites of either second or third reichen, and the slavery culture had to be forced out of Germany from without.
Might seem ironic that such sensitivity arises in light of the European Union’s “ever closer union” and “solidarity” rhetoric. Why should the character of the UK change for anyone?
Succinct summary, correct and to the point in just two words.
I live in a small village in Israel, every single village and town has a reminder of those killed in all of Israel's wars, WWII and WWI. Some have tributes to Germans (from WWI), Turks, British, French, Australians, New Zealanders and others.
Germany (and the allies) lost generations of young men in both wars but we must leave behind, the modern concept of parity where everything is relative and equal such as the suffering was equal on all sides or Germany (or Imperial Japan) as they were “victims” too.
True, these were massive tragedies BUT...
There were aggressors and defenders. Who initiated the onslaught and who paid the price. Those that brought these horrible events to the rest of us should not celebrate anything but quietly remember the dead but not forget the why and how.
Those that “won” the hard fought battles can indeed celebrate though modestly that they saved the world from Austro-Hungarian Imperialism and then Nazi Fascist world slavery.
There were clear winners and losers. We do not celebrate killing others, we do however, celebrate halting them.
Each of those points of history have probably had multiple tomes and treatises published, each properly filed and forgotten by most. Your post makes excellent points, most of which I studied in college as part of two history courses, one on WW2 and the other on the diplomatic history of the US in the 20th Century. Both courses were taught by the same professor who regularly taught the class in various costumes of the time.
I especially commend your comment on Wilson as I think it is an under-studied area. I only recently read “When the Cheering Stopped” to get a better sense of that time and that presidency.
You ask why the sensitivity, and the answer is because they do not accept the biblical injunction of visiting the sins of the father onto the sons. If they were not alive they are not guilty. It does not matter whether the practice was terminated by an internal civil war or an external invasion. They object to the practice, all too common in America, of attributing to Germans who were born subsequent in 1945 the stigma of racism. Evidently it does not occur to those making the charge that there must be some racial reason for guilt to run with the DNA from generation to generation. Who is the racist?
Never mind the fact that they presume that all liberal stereotypes about white Americans to be true.
To the degree that they stereotype Americans perhaps we should blame ourselves. Look at the American television through a foreigner's eyes and describe what you see. Look at American movies the same way and tell me whether you see any stereotypes. Finally, ask yourself whether we succeeded only too well in the object of the occupation. Never mind the Morgenthau plan which was to turn Germany into a de- industrialized farm, consider only the intention to remove racism from the German psyche. When they see racism they react the way we wanted them to and the way we conditioned them to do.
We programmed the Germans post-World War II to react against racism. They see us as racist. They see us as imperialistic and warmongering partly (repeat "partly") because we gave them a set of values which leads them to that conclusion.
We do not have any parallels here; there was never a civil war fought in Germany to extricate those who were hardcore adherents to the elites of either second or third reichen, and the slavery culture had to be forced out of Germany from without
Evidently you are unaware of the Soviet republics around Berlin and in Bavaria post-World War I and the military struggles to put them down. If you are familiar with the post-World War II history of Germany, you will see a society not just sullenly obedient to the Western occupation but eager to restore actual democracy. If you look at the transition from the American occupation here where I live to self-government at a time when people were starving and beaten, you will see a history of enlightenment and genuine democracy as they succeeded in creating one of the great and prosperous democracies of the world.
Might seem ironic that such sensitivity arises in light of the European Unions ever closer union and solidarity rhetoric.
My interaction with Germans tells me that they mostly don't really think about the implications of the European Union except as it affects their pocketbook. I ask them, "where is the capital of Bavaria," and they will gladly tell me that it is Munich. When I suggest to them that perhaps it is in Berlin they concede that's possibly so. If I then suggest to them that the capital is really in Brussels, they look startled. If I suggest to them it might be where the world court is located, or the European Court, where the United Nations, or the WTO is located, they scratch their heads.
If I tell them that we fought a civil war to find out whether the capital would be in Richmond or in Washington, they begin to understand what I am talking about. But if we judge them because on the one hand they are too left-wing with respect to American foreign policy or American race relations and in the next breath indict them for what their fathers did in the Holocaust, we might feel good, but we advance our understanding not 1 mm.
It was the end of an age of innocence.
It is certainly proper to analyze the causes of these conflicts. But it is not proper to vest the sins of the father onto the son. If there is residual anti-Semitism here in Germany, and I believe there is, much of it comes from the younger Germans who resent paying "reparations" to Israel or to Jews-I'm not saying whether they do or not, I am merely commenting on the perception which certainly exists.
If one can say that the bungled peace of 1918 led to the Holocaust, one can also say that the occupation of Germany post-1945 has been a great success because it produced one of the great democratic, prosperous nations of the world.
If I were a Jew in Israel, I would agree that we should never forget, I agree with that and I am not a Jew in Israel. But I also think that as we celebrate halting mass murderers, we should also celebrate their rehabilitation.
Thank you very much for your elucidating and friendly words:-)
Unfortunately, most Germans have, as you implied, but a dim idea of the US, her political system or her history and her self-image derived from both.
Thus, they somehow always seem to hold Americans against their ideals.
Some of these Germans really should remember that politics is the ‘art of the possible’, e. g. one should not expect the impossible, such as conforming 100% to one’s ideals.
After all, we are only human :-)
Dear Mr. Pepsionice,
thank you very much as well, especially your reference to President Wilsons feeble health.
But I thought that his health problems did not occur until the end of the Versailles peace conference.
I could be very wrong, though...
Sorry, typo: it should have read ‘President Wilson’s’, not ‘President Wilsons’
zu habst der krieg verloren!
Good reports from the source, thanks. As I learn more about the history of the 20th C and the ability of the British to manipulate and destroy so much freedom in the world, I’m amazed that we even consider Britain as an ally. After what a mess the Brit left made in Africa (esp SA), the MidEast and most other places on the earth, I’d think we would never again ally with that criminal nation!
You actually believe that such people are interested in democracy? Then why the deliberate blind eye to the Soviet-like EU government in Brussels? Why also the sudden interest in restoring the monarchy at what is now called the federal level?
As for US media in other countries and how the perception of the USA may be so framed, blame Hollyweird.
You’re completely wrong that racism on their part is due to US conditioning; it goes back centuries. Only a liberal would so reason. Unless by what you mean, it is the premature cancellation of de-Nazification on the part of the Allies, the USA in particular? because then I’d agree in a contemporary sense, to a degree that is.
As for the “stigma of racism”, when you have half the population in a survey compare the IDF to the Waffen SS and also believing that Israel is conducting a “war of extermination” against the “Palestinians” (which seems to be working in reverse since the population of “Palestinians” continues to grow), perhaps the stigma is prematurely withdrawn?
You seem to fall for leftist propaganda very quickly. The British Empire was a far more positive force in the world than negative. If they never went to India, that country would have been terrorized by the Thuggees perhaps into the modern age; it certainly would have fallen to the Second World (communism). Certainly the former British territories in Africa fell to communists after the empire withdrew.
Would you put your faith in the competing empires from Europe? Have a look at what they did first.
Let me think about your reply and I will get back with you. I think we agree more than disagree. I need to digest your response, thanks.
Unfortunately, most Americans have but a dim idea of the US, her political system or her history and her self-image derived from both.
I lived in a small town on the Mosel River for 3 years during my tour in Germany. During the 1980 elections, my neighbors pleaded with me to vote for Carter, as they were certain that Reagan would start WWIII.
My German at that time was quite good, as I was ending my 4th year in country. At my neighborhood gasthaus, I gave my neighbors a better understanding of American history and politics. In short, I brought them down off the ledge, but it took a couple of months.
The deal was sealed on Reagan's inauguration day, when the hostages were released. Shortly after, I was invited to sit at the stammtisch, a privilege not accorded to many foreigners.
It didn't hurt that I was one of their best customers. ;)
The Germans were utterly opposed to Bush, were convinced that he was a war monger and a (gasp) cowboy to boot. The fact that the Europeans gave Obama the peace prize right out of the gate tells us everything we need to know.
You are right, the average German is better informed about America certainly than Americans are about Germany and may even be better informed about America that most Americans, or at least those low information voters who returned Obama to office.
‘Lousy military leadership and strategy from the British and French...accomplished almost nothing for the war.’
Utter crap. The myth of British generals being ‘butchers and bunglers’ is just that. Whilst mistakes were made, Haig and the British in fact fought many campaigns successfully and skilfully, esp in the last year of the war. Where, contrary to myth, the British Army bore the major brunt of the Western Front fighting (the Kasierschlact and the 100 Days Offensive). And used ground breaking tactics. The use by the British of tanks at the Battle of Cambrai in 1917 impressed General Pershing so much that he ordered the creation of a tank force to support the AEF’s infantry, for example.
Americans who think Pershing waltzed in and showed the Limeys and Frogs how to fight need to think again. The Americans themselves in their (few) months of fighting made strategic and tactical errors.
I’m leery of leftist and rightist propaganda but you do seem to have some overly warm view concerning the benevolence of the British Empire. Take another look @ the Brits in S. Africa, Zimbabwe, Rhodesia, Egypt, Iraq or China and then discuss what fine friends they’ve been.
BTW I firmly believe this country should never have succumbed to involvement in WW1 and that the US involvement was instrumental in assisting the formulation that gave the world WW2.
“A”clamatory, beclamatory, ceeclamatory, declamatory, really all the way down to zeeclamatory, that’s one of the consequences one has to live with when one loses two world wars and winds up running Europe anyway. ;’) Thanks Olog-hai.
For the average German, under 60 there is no recollection of it and it happened a long time ago.
For the Jewish people, 1933-1945 is yesterday.
For a German, it happened eons ago.
As an ancient people that has seen it all before, we have a long memory and things like WWII do not fade. We are here, Nazi Germany is gone, we survive anything and everything thrown against us. Memory is key.
You stated:”It is possible to say that the Germans were guilty and the Poles were not, for example”.
The Poles and most Europeans were guilty as well. The Austrians (Anschluss) Hungarians, French, Croats and all other Europeans freely (and happily I might add) handed over their Jewish brethren to the Germans or the Fascist equivalent power in each land, so did the Church.
The guilt is European, not just German but Germany will have to carry this burden for a long time.
You stated, “But it is not proper to vest the sins of the father onto the son”.
Germany, as a nation bears this sin. Of course, if you're born after 1945 you are not part of the crime individually, but collectively your people, in your nation, with your ideology and more importantly, with your culture/mindset perpetrated crimes that no other nation (though the USSR is damn close) had ever done, up to that point in history.
If Antisemitism exists in Germany and Europe, and, as you say, it is the result of Germany STILL having to pay all the victims then, what does that cyclical argument say about the Germans? If they are Antisemitic because they have to pay “those money grubbing Jews”, then they have learned very little. By thinking this way, you blame the victim for being the victim and you vent your anger on the one that suffered. Hate the Jew for being the Jew that you killed?
I understand the logic of your argument and understand the sentiment of the Germans who are “sick and tired” of those payments but what price can compensate for the loss of 1.5 million Jewish children? Do yo have any idea what that means for a small people like the Jews?
I am not getting out my violin to play a sad song to make you feel guilty here but what I am trying to convey to you is what a devastating effect this has on the Jewish people to this very day, right now. I do not think people understand or appreciate the impact of the loss of 1.5 million children, forget about the other 4.5 million souls, I am thinking about the kids.
Germany will have to pay some kind of compensation for years to come until the people of that era pass from this world and that is fast approaching. Then, Germany will have paid out her funds. In Israel, in the late 1950’s there was a huge argument about even accepting reparation funds (called “blood money”), in the end, the young, struggling country decided to take the funds to help boost her fledgling economy.
You stated, “If one can say that the bungled peace of 1918 led to the Holocaust...”
I do not think there is a direct correlation. A “bungled peace” led to WWI part 2 but the Holocaust is something special, something outside of post-WWI grievances,something very special in it's evil, that only the Germans designed.
It comes deep from the depths of the German soul, not the Pole, not the Japanese nor Italian, it is uniquely German and that is something the Germans must think about and analyze for generations, should they chose to do so.
The bottom line, is that we Jews, especially in Israel, celebrate LIFE. Unlike the Muslims (who allied themselves with the Axis powers in WWII) of this region, who celebrate death, WE choose life.
We recognize that Germany has made amazing strides, has educated itself, have created an amazing, prosperous country out of the ashes of WWII.
We celebrate the modern Germany and they are our closest ally in Europe so we recognize and celebrate the rehabilitation and unification of your country.
We do not forget however, that 70 years ago, it was a capital offense to be a Jew in Europe and that the ashes of millions of my people are still scattered all over the continent.
Let me begin by correcting my statement which no doubt leads to a misapprehension which I sensed the minute I saw it published on the screen. My observation, "It is possible to say that the Germans were guilty and the Poles were not, for example, was meant to apply to war guilt rather than to a history of anti-Semitism, of which the polls are certainly "guilty"just as were the Russians, as you noted.
I am not sure that it is only the Germans who would have effected the Holocaust. It is clear that a quarter-century earlier the Turks explored the possibilities and a couple of decades earlier the Soviets were pretty brutal to the kulaks. We have had tens of millions murdered in China and the Vietnamese were brutal after they swept over the South. The killing fields of Cambodia reflect a kind of blind murderous outburst which killed about one third of its people. I am reminded of Churchill's wartime speech which I do not quote exactly but was to the effect that if the Nazis prevailed the world would descend into a new dark age made more terrible by the lights of perverted science. I don't know how much of the Holocaust was the product of the German soul, of 20th century technology and science, or the fanaticism of Hitler and his henchmen. I suspect it was some combination of all three.
Incidentally, for the record I am not German I'm merely live in Germany.
Let me conflate two matters. First, my comment that, "it is not proper to vest the sins of the father onto the son" and your observation that, "Germany, as a nation bears this sin." I know you have tried to square the circle but the two concepts are fundamentally incompatible-at least once the guilty generation has died off. It seems to me that for a German to bear any guilt for the Holocaust he must've arrived at least at the age of puberty by the beginning of the war, 1939. That would make these people nearly 80 years old today. More than 90% of the population feels that they are not personally guilty for the crimes of their fathers.
At some point these Germans have a legitimate complaint about paying reparations and you quite rightly note that time is drawing near. Incidentally, I do not assert that this is the exclusive cause of German anti-Semitism which I believe exists, I think it is a point which is seized upon. But as an American, I question whether United States foreign policy concerning Israel should be dictated by the historical reality of what Germans did to Jews? I have not argued this case much since Obama came into office because I believe he has sold out to the Muslim Brotherhood and this and/or his Marxist background make him an enemy of Israel. I do not want to associate myself with those motives.
If we insist that "Germany as a nation bears this sin" do we not leave ourselves intellectually defenseless to saying that Jews as a group bear responsibility for the advance of communism? If we are going to draw these conclusions, these invidious distinctions based on race or ethnicity, where does logic make us stop? May I say that stereotypes which you use in irony such as, "those money grubbing Jews become legitimate debating points? At what point do we become what we abhor?
Exactly. How far back do we go in history to hold nations and peoples accountable?
The Roman Empire? further back?
You stated: “I am not sure that it is only the Germans who would have effected the Holocaust”
and then you go on to cite all the bloody events of the 20th century carried out by various regimes. That's fine.
Yes, genocide has happened before WWII and after it but what makes this word “Holocaust” so unique for Germany and that was not done before or since is based on two main points:
1) Sheer scale of the killing machine, the absolute commitment of all of the nation's resources in order to completely eliminate a race forever and destroy any sign that it ever existed and...
2) The advanced Industrial/Technological tools and systems used to carry it out.
This differentiates the German experience in WWII from the Turks, Russians and Chinese slaughters that have ever been carried out.
Who, other than the problematic German cultural soul with their MOST ADVACNED 20th century technology and science could have done this? You and I know that Germans are industrious (I worked with Siemens) who see a project to the very end, in detail and precision. Who else has combined the concept with the technological tools other than the Master race?
Now to an issue that I thought might come up and it is a classic.
You stated: “But as an American, I question whether United States foreign policy concerning Israel should be dictated by the historical reality of what Germans did to Jews?
I really don't want to go off on a tangent here about Israel but if that is what you'd like, fine with me.
US Foreign policy is not “dictated” by war crime guilt for Israel. Israel has every right to exist and thrive. It had that right in 1919 and it had it in 1948. The world did feel sorry for the Jews in 1945 but the idea for establishing a Jewish homeland is as old as the Bible. Jews have lived in the land always but not in huge numbers.
The US and the West supported Israel because it represents the Judeo-Christian West, values, concepts, freedoms and yes, even in this region, Democracy.
When the West needed a bulwark against the USSR and her Arab satellite nations, the US supported Israel but that really did not start seriously until AFTER the 1967 war. Not before. That is to say, Israel potentially could have lost in 1948, 1956 and 1967 and there would have been not a crocodile tear shed by anybody.
I use stereotypical terms to drive home point. I have no problem writing down antisemitic slurs because when we talk about these subjects, all the cards need to be on the table. I hold nothing back and I believe in stark honesty in order to get past these hurdles.
I know what I am saying is an affront to you and I apologize for that. I refer time and time again to the German soul as being uniquely dark and violent. It is in there somewhere, do you not agree? Isn't that what S. Kubrick was alluding to in the film, ‘A Clockwork Orange’, you know, Beethoven, culture vs. violence?
In your responses I note several points that concern me.
1) Are you attempting shake off my “German Soul” idea by demonstrating that other cultures were, “just as bad”?
2) Israel exerting “undue”? influence on US Foreign Policy.
3) Jews as the main disseminating force of world Communism.
Now, I am an ardent anticommunist and a Conservative. The points you raise are yours to be raised freely but they remind me of classic anti-Jewish (Zionist) talking points.
The idea that the US is somehow controlled by Jews is a classic libel.
The idea that Jews pushed the Communist agenda is also a classic and I think we have to be careful here because I am capable of going off on multiple tangents and we might stray from the main point here.
In any event I do not wish to become that which I abhor.
All I can say to that very propagandized response is for all to recall George Santayana’s maxim. Study of the past will clarify things very much.
You really have no idea about my views and appear to be a rather smug & arrogant fool. There’s plenty of propaganda spewing from all sides and relying on the Lusitania as purpose to join in WW1 is silly. I remain convinced that we should have remained uninvolved in both European wars. Your selective history is little more than propaganda, aka history written by the victors. Otherwise get-a-life.
Well, since you came out with personal attacks, I have to assume that you count liberalism among your views. You are your own worst enemy, in that case.
Oh puleez, smug is no way to go thru life, geta life.
Then by all means, stop being smug.
It was I who quoted Churchill about the Nazis bringing on a dark age made more terrible by "the lights of perverted science." So there can be no disagreement between us about the fact that the Germans combined whatever was torturing their soul with technology.
It was I who said that the Holocaust "was the product of the German soul, of 20th century technology and science, or the fanaticism of Hitler and his henchmen. I suspect it was some combination of all three." I do not deny, therefore, in fact, I advanced the idea that there was something in the German soul at the time which contributed to the Holocaust.
I did not insinuate:
1) Are you attempting shake off my German Soul idea by demonstrating that other cultures were, just as bad?
2) Israel exerting undue? influence on US Foreign Policy.
3) Jews as the main disseminating force of world Communism.
I will object to your "German soul" idea if you want to extrapolate that into an ongoing inter-generational tendency that is carried in the DNA of Germans. If that is your argument you must explain why it is that Germans seem to lose that tendency when they take up American citizenship. Do they change the DNA like so much oil? Moreover, I caution that when you make that assertion you are playing with fire. That was the import of these remarks which were made in a different context than you place them:
"If we insist that "Germany as a nation bears this sin" do we not leave ourselves intellectually defenseless to saying that Jews as a group bear responsibility for the advance of communism? If we are going to draw these conclusions, these invidious distinctions based on race or ethnicity, where does logic make us stop? May I say that stereotypes which you use in irony such as, "those money grubbing Jews become legitimate debating points?"
Is there something in the DNA of Jews that makes them ? Why is it intellectually and morally indefensible to make that generalization but perfectly proper to say that Germans have a distorted soul, Irish are drunks, French are lousy soldiers, Mexicans are lazy etc. Do you really want to go there? Does the cultural Revolution which killed tens of millions prove that the Chinese soul is given to vigilante-ism? Does the British importation of slaves into the Americas prove that they are given to slavery? Does the British Navy subsequently policing the slave trade on the high seas and on in land rivers prove that the British are not slavers? How do you generalize about a nation (never mind whether you're talking about an actual race) from a historical event? Does the fact that the Israelis have won a series of wars against great odds mean that they are a warlike race? In this context I observe that Jews played a prominent role in the rise of communism. The Frankfurt School was 100% Jewish; Cloward and Piven were Jews (I think); Saul Alinsky, mentor of Hillary Clinton and posthumous mentor of Barack Obama, was a Jew. Am I therefore now entitled to say that Jews have a communist soul?
As to the United States support of Israel: I believe that the United States should be guided by a rational sense of its national interest. If you argue that an alliance with democratic Israel advances the American national interest, that is an argument which counts for me. But the idea that America should support Israel because the Germans murdered Jews does not. That observation was made in the context of the latter generations of Germans not wanting to pay reparations for what their fathers and grandfathers did. Likewise, I want to know what America gets out of its relationship with Israel not whether Israel is our burden because of German crimes of a prior generation.
Finally, I am clear about the German war guilt and about German guilt for the Holocaust but I am not at all clear that we should vest the sins of the fathers onto the sons. I think the idea that we can define a national soul and carry guilt from generation to generation is very dangerous.
It is in this context I note that Olog-hai volunteered:
Germans do not want to celebrate the fact that they lost two world wars in a row. Let em go celebrate cultural diversity and being flooded with Muslims over a beer. Yah! Yah! Ve von de var you know!
But immediately before your last intelligent reply I received this:
All I can say to that very propagandized response is for all to recall George Santayanas maxim. Study of the past will clarify things very much.
It does not advance our understanding to resort to cryptic phrases which are pregnant with allusions to one of the monstrous crimes in the history of mankind. I think it is better to say it plainly.
Statismin fact and in principleis nothing more than gang rule. A dictatorship is a gang devoted to looting the effort of the productive citizens of its own country. When a statist ruler exhausts his own countrys economy, he attacks his neighbors. It is his only means of postponing internal collapse and prolonging his rule. A country that violates the rights of its own citizens, will not respect the rights of its neighbors. Those who do not recognize individual rights, will not recognize the rights of nations: a nation is only a number of individuals.”
I agree with all of that.
And history reveals who the greatest of statists were, and perhaps will be.
Santayana’s saying is very famous; it certainly is not cryptic.
Santayana wrote many wise words, the wisest of them, to this humble mind, would be:
“Almost every wise saying has an opposite, no less wise, to balance it”
I am not, in any way, insinuating anything residing in a German DNA. I reject the DNA idea completely. Tortured soul, yes, preprogramemd killing tendency, no.
“Does the fact that the Israelis have won a series of wars against great odds mean that they are a warlike race”?
The fact that Israel has won a series of wars is a testament to the fact that most of these wars were defensible, thus making them loyal to the name of the Army, the Israel DEFENSE Forces.
If Israel was really a warlike country, it would have soundly defeated the Arabs and utterly wiped them out so as to not to have to deal with them again, in another, and yet another war as we have seen up until the present time. Israel could have eliminated the Arabs in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 but she stopped short of that because she seeks a negotiated peace. The Arabs on the contrary fight genocidal wars as we are seeing right now. Had they won, we would not be here at all. Just look at what they do to each other, in their own lands!
Jews and Communism. Jews have a tendency to stand out and not accept the status quo and are always found at the forefront or avantguard of X.
Jews love change because they're never satisfied with what is. More recently, that's why they voted for Obama’s CHANGE. This Jew did not support the current President.
This desire for change propels them to the forefront of both moderate and radical change throughout history, in all fields (Einstein, Freud and Marx) including politics. Alinsky, Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, Rosa Luxembourg, Trotsky and so many more were Jews with a change agenda that revolutionized the world.
Jews may initiate that change but never sure how it will end, usually to their detriment. This is a lesson not learned by the Jews. The aims of Zionism on the other hand are designed by, for and the advabcement of the Jews in Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel.
I thought the Frankfurt school was an anti-Socialist, anti-collective Economic think tank. Am I incorrect? Many Jews there? Like Hayek and Mises? Are/were these fellows Jews?
Obama’s mentors are (unfortunately) individuals like Jimmy Carter, Zbig Brzezinski, Rev. Wright, Alinksy and a host of Left-wing nut cases, but the people did elect him.
What can I say about the likes of Jews like Ram Emmanuel or in Clinton's administration, Sandy Berger, Mad. Albright, Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, etc.? I can only hang my head in shame at these Jews who serve another G-d apparently.
“Likewise, I want to know what America gets out of its relationship with Israel not whether Israel is our "burden" because of German crimes of a prior generation”.
Do you see Israel as a “burden”? I'd like to know why. Israel gives many things to America but most of it is secret.
America does not support Israel ONLY out of a moral conviction to perhaps, safeguard a people who are part and parcel of the founding of America and the deep Judeo-Christian values that existed in America and perhaps, still guide her but I am not so sure anymore.
I think self-interest is primary followed by COMMON VALUES in a sea of barbarity in the Middle East. There is no denying that the moral element for Germany's relationship with Israel is part of a post-war “responsibility” that the Germans feel. This will fade with time and then where will Germany be?
It has been said that the Jews are the Miner's canary bird in the cave for civilization. When Jews go down, other always follow, this seems to be a rule throughout history and maybe this is why, it is still important for the West to “safeguard” the Jews from Holocaust II, though, if you ask me, we in Israel can't RELY on anybody to defend us.
Obama and the West are showing that they are not prepared to do anything whatsoever to halt the Iranians, who will get the bomb and this will change the planet. Now onto your last issue.
You come back to what I think is your main point, time and time again. That the sins of the fathers should not be passed down to the children. There is great merit in what you say but in reality it is the German people's decision. It is up to your culture and society in Deutschland to deal with it and, get over it or, pass it down.
The Jews will not forget and these memories are passed down just as the memories from ancient Persia (holiday of Purim) and ancient Egypt (holiday of Passover) are remembered and burned into our religious, national-social psyches.
When Israeli youth, from high schools, visit Auschwitz and do what is called, “The March of the Living” wearing Israeli blue and white with flags in hand, does this not irriatte the Poles? Does this not remind them about something they'd prefer to forget about? Of course. We remember and mark the place, the Poles can chose to hate us for reminding them or they can deal with it in their own terms.
So Germany has to deal with their own past, in the own terms. It is not up to me as a post-WWII Jew to tell you what to do with that package of horror. Either learn from it or make similar mistakes again, in the future.
I do not want to dictate anything to you but history shows the Jewish people that they pay a price for reminding others that they (the Jews) thrive and live and are a testament to G-d. This can really piss off other faiths and it does.
I even once read a diatribe by Bin Laden where he attacked the Jews by saying that the Torah is the sole possession of the Muslims, not the “pigs and monkey” Jews.
I call that unbridled jealousy and hate and that is what Islam suffers from today.
I do not think that The Frankfurt School could be described as anti-socialist and anti-collective, to the contrary the indictment against the Frankfurt school is that it has brilliantly expanded conventional Marxism from a purely economic approach to a social approach as well and this adaptation has profoundly influenced American and indeed worldwide education and explains much of our condition today.
In my view it is unfortunate that the history of The Frankfurt School reveals that it was 100% (or nearly 100%) Jewish in its origins and development. That immunizes it to some degree from criticism as does Obama's skin pigment. I offer you two views of this extraordinarily influential intellectual movement, one which indicts the movement with a bill of particulars and the counteroffensive, which comes from The Southern Poverty Law Center and touches on potential anti-Semitism of the critics and alleges the critics engage in conspiracy theory.
If you look at the indictment,
Who Placed American Men in a Psychic 'Iron Cage?' Part II
The Threat of 'Cultural Marxism' you will be exposed to a coherent challenge to the movement. I direct you to the Wikipedia account of the opposition so that you can see how the game is played by the opposition: Frankfurt School conspiracy theory.
I regret that this comes up in the context of anti-Semitism because it distorts any discussion of the impact of The Frankfurt School. Please remember that I referred of The Frankfurt School not by way of saying it is a Jewish conspiracy but by way of saying that its existence, whether a conspiracy or not, is not grounds for indictment of the Jewish race-precisely the opposite of what The Southern Poverty Law Center will no doubt accuse me of.
Let me read what you have sent before I comment, if you have the patience...
Another question: Why would an American, living in Bavaria have a picture of Nathan Bedford as Apr of his signature? You're obviously from below the Mason-Dixon line? Wasn't he in the KKK?
You should also be aware of Nathan Bedford's first Maxim of American politics: all politics in America is not local but ultimately racial.
The Southern Poverty Law Center was of signal importance in terminating the life of the KKK and America in its last incarnation. It brought a civil action under a federal statute originally designed against the Mafia which made all conspirators libel for damage caused by any member of the conspiracy. They got a judgment against the KKK and bankrupted it.
Beyond that, The Southern Poverty Law Center is a darling of the mainstream media in America often quoted to characterize conservative groups, movements, or people. I believe you will see a reference to the tea party as a suspect group. The Southern Poverty Law Center is notorious among conservatives for labeling anything conservative a conspiracy and "hate."
I cannot overstate the influence of The Frankfurt School on American journalism, academia, and, indeed, society. The article I sent you is lengthy but well worth the read if you want to have a conservative view of why America is in the psychic cage that it is presently in.
I have thought long and hard about the influence of The Frankfurt School and I think that it is profoundly dangerous because it is not just an attack on, for example, male domination (authoritarianism) to make room for a feminism, it is an assault on our epistemology, it is designed to attack the way we think and to impose an intellectual nihilism on society which leaves it vulnerable to the siren of the left. It does not argue politics it screws with our heads.
I would like to have your reaction after you put your acute mind to the matter.
>> I am also not familiar with the The Southern Poverty Law Center.
A lot of scallywags.