Polish PM: Any revision of Germany's role in WWII poses a "danger"

M&C ^ | Mar 5, 2007

[lizol]

Eastern European ping list

---

FRmail me to be added or removed from this Eastern European ping list

[The Blitherer]

Ah yes, as usual, revisionists will rewrite history with the hope of gaining something in the present, in this case, money.

[dfwgator]

If the Germans want any money, they can get it from the Russkies, leave the Poles out of it.

[SunkenCiv]

The USSR got eastern Poland and these German territories, and Poland got eastern Germany.

[Popocatapetl]

It is inevitable that eventually Germany will be no more condemned for Nazism than France is still condemned for Bonapartism.

That is, after the Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon was utterly damned for his conquest of Europe. He is believed to be the second most written about person in world history, after Jesus. There are entire libraries devoted to just books about him.

But within 200 years of his Antichrist-like (at the time) deeds, the typical view of him was that he was a French leader who used military aggression, and was more successful with it than his peers.

So what does the future hold for Hitler? Much the same. Eventually he and Nazism will just be seen as an outgrowth of German nationalism. National socialism will properly be seen as just another version of the 20th Centuries foolish experimentation with socialism.

While WWII will hopefully remain the bloodiest war in human history, what distinction need be made between Hitler and Stalin? They have many peers in that Century, such as Mao and Pol Pot, and the other communists and fascists.

Perhaps they will best be remembered for the fact that they were not just genocidal and power hungry, but used a philosophy to justify what they would have done any way.

[wolf78]

If the Germans want any money, they can get it from the Russkies, leave the Poles out of it.

Well, if "ze Germans" as in "the German state" wanted any money from Poland, it would have vetoed the EU enlargement, which costs the German taxpayer dozens of billions, in the first place, don't you think? Suffice to say the German republic has no such interest.

As to some frivolous claims made by individuals: Idiots are everywhere (I'm sure there are even German counterparts to vox_PL). But even if they try to sue, they won't get anything. The "Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany" is pretty much watertight.

[wolf78]

It is inevitable that eventually Germany will be no more condemned for Nazism than France is still condemned for Bonapartism.

Well, I'm pretty much convinced that even in the future Hitler will have a special place in history as one of the most atrocious, disgusting madmen (unlike the somewhat resonable Bonaparte).

But something else is an unavoidable fact: The youngest Germans who actually could have been Nazis are 80-85 today. Many of these "youngsters" were Nazis because they were members of Nazi organizations, much in the same sense that the current pope was not a "real" Nazi (i.e. he was a member of the Hitler youth, but membership was mandatory), with the few remaining actual perpetrators being in their 90s or 100s.

[wolf78]

Wow, I think by now the Kaczynskis are actually handing out daily press releases with regard to Germany. Which leads me to the (somewhat ironic) question:

What kind of political windfall are they expecting from that? Because otherwise I would call that seriously obsessive behaviour... if 85% of what the Polish goverment does is monitoring its western neighbor ;).

[curiosity]

It is inevitable that eventually Germany will be no more condemned for Nazism than France is still condemned for Bonapartism.

There is one key difference: Bonaparte did not attempt genocide. He engulfed Europe into a long, bloody, and unnecessary war, which is indeed a morally dispicable thing, but it doesn't even come close to the evil of Hitler's acts.

[Fred Nerks]

All the Kings horses and all the Kings men can't put Humpty Dumpty together again...

[SunkenCiv]

:') Splitting Germany with the Danzig corridor (after WWI, 1919 I think) was a war just waiting to happen. :')

[SunkenCiv]

Just adding this to the GGG catalog, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.

Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

[Grzegorz 246]

"Well, if "ze Germans" as in "the German state" wanted any money from Poland, it would have vetoed the EU enlargement, which costs the German taxpayer dozens of billions, in the first place, don't you think?"

I used to expect something better from you... The whole enlargement has cost a few billion so far and I've got a feeling that Germans aren't paying 100%...

[wolf78]

I used to expect something better from you... The whole enlargement has cost a few billion so far and I've got a feeling that Germans aren't paying 100%...

Ah, well, it depends on whether the treaty of Nice and it's formula for agricultural subsidies stands or will be amended. But you're right, I was talking about the cumulative figure over the next 15, 20 years.

As to not paying "100%": That of course is also correct (it would be madness if it were otherwise, neither the British, French nor the Belgians are that poor). But one should also remember which country came up with the missing millions when Blair, Chirac and Marcinkiewicz couldn't agree on a number in 2005.

Don't get me wrong: There is nothing wrong with Germany shouldering a large part of the EU budget, after all, German companies also profit immensely from access to the East European markets.

What I wanted to point out is the following: It would make very little sense for Germany to invest billions in good relationships with its neighbors just to ruin it all e.g. by supporting claims like those of the Preussische Treuhand (which the German state never did).

[Popocatapetl]

The term genocide is a modern invention, and it has never been a good descriptive term.

(From the Wiki on Holocaust victims)

"While the victims of the Holocaust were primarily Jews, the Nazis also persecuted and slaughtered the members of other groups they considered inferior, undesirable or dangerous, including Poles and other Slavic peoples such as Russians, Belarusians and Serbs, Bosniaks, Roma & Sinti (also known as Gypsies), and some Africans, Asians and others who did not belong to the "Aryan race"; the mentally ill and the physically disabled; homosexuals; and political opponents and religious dissidents such as communists, trade unionists, Freemasons and Jehovah's Witnesses.

The victims of the Holocaust were generally described by the Nazis as "undesirables," "enemies of the state", "asocial elements," and "moral degenerates," labels that went hand-in-hand with their term Untermensch ("sub-human")."

The Nazis did try to expel Jews from Germany prior to trying to eliminate them, but their emphasis was on wanting them "out" ("Juden raus"); which again fits more in line with the better term of "ethnic cleansing". Germany was motivated to eliminate Jews from its lands, not from the rest of the world. (Unlike Muslims, who openly support "genocide" of the Jews, but based on religion rather than ethnic group.)

This was actually a step *above* the *punishment* the Turks inflicted on the Armenians for aligning with the Russians against the Turks. But that was also less a "genocide" than a punishment for disloyalty--it did not seek to exterminate all Armenians.

All this really amounts to, however, is just a critique of the word "genocide", and to explain why it is inferior to the newer "ethnic cleansing".

[curiosity]

Whatever you want to call it, what the Nazis did was far worse, by orders of magnitude, than what Bonaparte did.

[Popocatapetl]

Note, I said "its lands". This is not exclusive with "lebensraum". That is, any land occupied by the Third Reich were "its lands" and subject to such atrocities, from Africa to Russia. North to the Baltic and south to Crete.

I will note that the Germans strongly denied the Katyn Wood massacre. A bizarre oddity of war.

[Schweinhund]

The Nazis didn't deny the Katyn Wood massacre. They just said it had been committed by the Soviets. I don't really know a lot about the whole story, but the massacre is presented on Wikipedia as a Soviet crime. Anyway, I'm sure the Nazis killed lots of people either way.