Printable View
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Communist.html
I never understood the idea of censorship whether it be of a single word (n-word in Huk Fin) or historically important years (Nazi Regime). However, as a student with an inquisitive mind, this form of historical sanitation is simply detrimental.
Err, doesn't mention anything about censorship :bulb: I mean, from the actual article..Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega
So, adding that apparently only 60% knows that they currently live in a democracy, it sounds more like they need better education on political systems, and not like censorship. At all. And Germany isn't exactly known for denying their Nazi past, either.Quote:
Despite being obliged to visit a concentration camp at least once in their schooldays and learning about Hitler's seizure of power, German students showed a lack of knowledge about their roots.
Oh, and the wording about the results is a bit vague too (were definite, is mentioned, not 'knew' - different thing), and considering the source, the daily mail, I would take this with a grain of salt anyway.
That's me being stupid, sorry. I read an article about Mein Kampf and censorship in the old Soviet Block. I just connected the articles I read.
I'd like to point out that Mein Kampf is not actually being censored, it's not illegal to own, or buy it - the owner of the copyright just refuses to print new versions or allow copies. Granted, the Bavarian government holds the copyright, but still.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega
Oh wow, I didn't know that. Guess I either misread the article or simply remember it poorly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
I'm still amazed by the ignorance of the general student body. They almost rival U.S. students.
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that the laws regarding the ban on stuff like "Denying the holocaust ever happened" were enacted by the Allied government. Yes, that includes the United States of "Free Speech, my ass" America.
And, just to prevent the stupid "Why don't you revoke it, then?" argument: Do you want to be the politician who'll commit both a political and social suicide and who'll reap quite a backlash from both national and international press?
Because that won't be seen as a move for free speech. It will be seen as a Nazi-enabler.
You're blaming laws that are on the books in 2012 on the actions of the US in the 1940s? :bored:
Well, he does have a point that no, politician wants to be the one who gets rid of it.
If they got rid of it in 1989, I doubt anyone would have blinked. And quite frankly, if the West German governments allowed former Nazis to gain high bureaucratic and political positions, I doubt changing this law would be viewed as that much worse.
Well, I didn't see the Nuremberg trials condemn anyone else but the prominent Nazi party members. And which "former Nazis" are currently in high bureaucratic or political positions?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It's also funny that on the one hand you're admonishing me for pointing out and using a historical fact as an argument - while on the other hand using a historical event yourself. To emphasize my point in that regard:
You're blaming laws that are on the books in 2012 on the inactions of Germany in 1989?
Currently? Dude, if they were born in 1945 they'd already be retired! But I think there were some pretty high nazis in politics, police, and security services. any experienced person wpuld have served in the nazi regime, so it's not that surprising, I guess. I think France was worse in this respect, though.
That would have been another point I could have made: How many people would have been left if we excluded everyone and anyone connected to the old regime? Not to excuse those guys, but Germany would've been pretty empty if we threw everyone related to Nazi stuff in jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
That's a pretty big strawman there. I wasn't referring to excluding lieutenants and minor bureaucrats. You had quite a few mid-level and somewhat high-level Nazis work for the West German government. In fact, the CDU was full of such ex-Nazis...
And that's relevant to the present exactly how?
Please note that you're again using the historical strawman you yourself just admonished me for. Can't have it both ways, y'know?
Me: "Well, there's that stuff from 1945, by the way..."
Loki: "You can't use stuff from 1945 to argue about present day issues! But while I think about it, there's another thing from 1945 and from 1989 I'd like to throw at you!"
More is better Khen, esp. when it comes to standards :p
Your claim was that the same politicians who were ok with allowing mid-ranking Nazis into the government were somehow horrified at the potential international reaction from decriminalizing Nazi symbols...Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
A former Nazi put a man on the Moon. This is a feat championed not only by your government but also Hollywood. And the American Nazi party had relatively minute success. SoQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Werner Von BraunQuote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
If you were thinking of a different one, let me know...
Aha. And how many of those mid-ranking Nazis were still working for the government in 1989?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Or, in case you were actually talking about the years directly after the war: Yeah, that would've gone over well. A country which tries to repair its international relations announces that it's a-ok for everyone in the country to, say, deny the holocaust ever happened.
Yeah, that wouldn't have damaged relations with Israel or France not at all, no.
The U.S. is exponentially worse in this regard. The president wanted Nazi scientist working for the U.S. rather than the USSR. The president said to through the vilest scum in prison for the remainder of their life. However, the best scientist we're also the ones most heinous ones. The secret service made FAKE identities for them in order to them to be recruited.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Edit:
President Truman approved Operation Paperclip and this man was instrumental (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rudolph) to the U.S. Space Program.
We used a bunch of Nazi scientists. The Germans had Nazis make up a sizeable portion of their bureaucracy and government...Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega
All the German leadership would have to do is openly condemn anyone who'd make such statements. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with your country of birth and/or residence. Although you started a thread about a United Kingdom gathering, i'm not entirely familiar with your history. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Are you British or US?
Are you, by chance, familiar with the work of a F. Neumann?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
In before the remarks about A-bombs and vietnam:
What should have been done with [former] Nazi bureaucrats and politicians etc? Are we asking for discrimination based on previous political affiliation? Are we simply saying that being a former Nazi is a punishable crime in itself? Just to clarify matters
I'd say active involvement with the crimes of the regime.
The Nazi regime was involved in numerous criminal activities (even according to its own constitution). What exactly is wrong about punishing mid to upper ranking Nazis for their crimes? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Absolutely nothing wrong with it, provided they're tried and sentenced for their crimes and the law prohibits them from holding positions as politicians as bureaucrats. If you're saying that they should all have been tried and punished in that fashion then I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
What exactly precludes someone from making membership in an organization into a crime? :confused:
Nothing precludes it, but I'm not sure how you could practically go about doing this without either violating a person's right to due process on the one hand or starting up on thought-crimes and the like on the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
If the organization has explicitly illegal goals, I fail to see what the problem is. Is there something wrong with making membership in al-Qaeda illegal?
No trial? Punishing people without trial for acts committed before those acts were illegal? Collective punishment without trial?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The organization engaged in numerous illegal acts (that were illegal at the time). The members willingly joined an organization that they knew engaged in those illegal acts. The act of membership proves guilt. You also need to learn the meaning of collective punishment: hint, it's punishing many for the crimes of a few. It's inconceivable that mid to high ranking Nazi officials didn't partake in at least some of that regime's crimes; same for al-Qaeda.
I take it you're against the killing of known al-Qaeda members (to humor you, let's assume they're not known to have personally blown anyone up yet) without providing them a trial?
How does that matter? Do you expect the new democratic country of Germany to uphold the old laws of Nazi Germany?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I agree, but which crimes did they partake in? If you're not punishing them as individuals for their individual crimes then you're punishing them as a collective. If you're punishing them as individuals for being members of the Nazi party then you are instead effectively criminalising political affiliation rather than the crimes they committed. While the act of membership proves guilt it is not in itself sufficient for deciding what the punishment should be.Quote:
The members willingly joined an organization that they knew engaged in those illegal acts. The act of membership proves guilt. You also need to learn the meaning of collective punishment: hint, it's punishing many for the crimes of a few. It's inconceivable that mid to high ranking Nazi officials didn't partake in at least some of that regime's crimes;
I'm not sure if this is a trick question, but I do indeed have some difficulties with stomaching such things in general although to be fair it's mostly because of the risk of innocent people also being harmed. That being said, you guys are currently at war with al-Qaeda. Was Germany at war with the Nazi party in 1989?Quote:
I take it you're against the killing of known al-Qaeda members (to humor you, let's assume they're not known to have personally blown anyone up yet) without providing them a trial?