|
On November 14 2012 05:44 Gonzo103 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 05:37 SilentchiLL wrote:On November 14 2012 05:22 Gonzo103 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 14 2012 05:11 MoltkeWarding wrote:
If I were to put on my dreaming cap, I would go on a limb and say that there is something about Germany which makes it different from other countries in their susceptibility to radical views. If you look at Germany in comparison to other countries like Austria, Hungary, Italy, France or Greece, anti-Nazism is here most strictly, diligently and stalwartly fortified in the minds and hearts of the people. Contrary to the inferences of the OP, in Germany the "Extreme Right" is less likely to come to power than any of the aforementioned countries. This is partially because of the vulgarity of non-conformist politics, and a widespread longing in Germany for socially respectable opinions.
Hitler understood this after the 1923 Putsch, when otherwise sympathetic members of the Bavarian State police obeyed their orders and opened fire on the ranks of the SA. It proved to Hitler that the widespread sympathy for his cause in Munich did not go so far as to act out against the proclaimed organs of political legitimacy.
After his release from prison he abandoned trying to pull off his own "March on Rome," and looked to overthrow the Weimar Republic through legitimate means. Part of this went into developing his oratory, his personal manners, his presentation to respectable social circles. He also knew how to accentuate parts of his programme which were respectable: nationalism, anti-marxism, freedom and equality for Germany among nations, repudiation of German war guilt. Values which would carry with them not only the collaboration of much of the conservative-nationalist vote, but much of the working class as well. He knew how weak and flimsy the moral authority of the Weimar Republic was, yet he understood how strong the devotion to legitimacy of the German people were, that the final moves which could probably have stopped him would have been the restoration of the Hohenzollern Monarchy before 1933, and the restoration of the Habsburgs (which Schuschnigg attempted to carry out at the 11th hour) in Austria.
It's this same devotion to legitimate and respectable opinions which prevent what is publicly excoriated as radicalism from ever coming to power in Germany. A silent shift in values may occur, latent natural feelings of patriotism may reawaken after decades of neglect, but the ultimate stability of the German vehicle remains the same. Can a Machiavellian genius like Hitler still play the system to destruction from within? It is much more difficult now than in 1933. The Federal Republic of Germany has the great advantage over its Weimar Predecessor, in that after 60 years of existence, most of those who were born under values not shaped by the Federal Republic are dying out if not already dead. The exception to this is in Eastern Germany, and the historical absence of the BRD may be an even stronger factor behind the emergence of radical politics there than the economic situation. Wow this guy knows his shit! Are you studying History? For sure you know more about Germany history than 90 % of the Germans. And you really din´t miss a point in this Discussion. I am impressed! Maybe you just had a bad history teacher, but I could have said a lot more about that and could have done it in greater detail (though I wouldn't agree with everything he wrote 100%), of course I had the history intensive course, but still, you exagerrated greatly there and shouldn't judge the rest of the population by your own knowledge or your limited experience of others about the topic... c´mon guys! I got your points! Maybe i had a bad History Teacher, maybe i exagerrated a bit to much! I really din´t want to offend anybody. And i am still sure most of the Germans don´t know as much as he knows. They don´t have to. Maybe he is wrong in some points! His posts are way way better than claiming we should build a wall around Germany because we share the same DNA with our Grandfathers o.O
Relax man, nobody's attacking you, your statement was just a bit too harsh.
|
On November 14 2012 05:31 PerryHooter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 05:01 Holy_AT wrote:
The german government and law is far to lenient with nazis. They are allowed to parade they even get police protection,
I mean WTF ? These people should be put in jail and their leaders deserve worse.
Only a dead Nazi is a good Nazi but people have learned nothing and they wont. That's not what I heard, although I might be wrong since I'm not German. What I've heard is that there are anti-nazi laws in Germany, for instance it's a crime to publicly display the swastika symbol. Or am I wrong? If so, Germany has laws that quite severely is limiting the freedom of speech, more so than most other democratic nations. The criticism I've encountered so far is that Germany is going to far in limiting the freedom of speech, never that they are not going far enough. Perhaps you don't understand the problems involved in limiting that basic right.
Yes and no 
It is forbidden (§86StGB) to publicly display politically "incorrect" symbols, and please dont quote out of context here, its about impossible to translate burocracy-german properly but let me try:
"Incorrect Symbols" whose content is against the liberal democratic system or against the international understanding.
Basically its forbidding you to sow hatred and wrongful thinking.
But NO the freedom of speech is imo granted, unless someone obviously says or writes something "incorrect (as above)"
As long as the message is not encouraging anti-religious-cultural-racial-sexual thinking or in any other way seditious.
|
On November 14 2012 05:01 Holy_AT wrote:
The german government and law is far to lenient with nazis. They are allowed to parade they even get police protection,
I mean WTF ? These people should be put in jail and their leaders deserve worse.
Only a dead Nazi is a good Nazi but people have learned nothing and they wont.
The problem with the NPD is that they know what they are allowed to do and they know what they're not allowed to do. They won't do something severe publicly.
Of course there's a lot of people who think the same way you do argueing "well they're not saying it but they mean it!" but what are you supposed to do? Change our juristication and put them in jail although they didn't do something against the law because we know they'd like to?
As far as I know these kinds of things happened, they went to court, the NPD won and in the end you support them that way by shoving money down their throat or giving them publicity.
Just writing this for the ever so slight offchance that you're actually not trolling. "Humour" transcribes badly via internet
|
I totally agree with that DNA thing. But it gets worse: there are a lot of turkish people living in germany. Their great grandfathers took part at the armenian genocide in the early 20th century. With this kind of DNA in only ONE country, I am afraid the next Holocaust could already be in preparation.
|
I might like to have seen a wall built around Germany if this were still the 1950s, if by wall you mean a figurative political wall rather than a literal wall.
Ever since the Molotov-Bevin meetings in 1947 there were numerous proposals floated West to the effect of mutual disengagement by the Soviet Union and the Western Powers from a neutralised, disarmed, and united Germany. None of the Western powers were interested in such a solution (excepting, temporarily, Churchill when he returned to power in '51,) and the such plans were ultimately futile. What happened thereafter is well-known: the rearmament of West Germany, the establishment of the Doppelgänger in the East, the Berlin blockade and the integration of the Germanies within the two military-blocs.
In such a scenario Germany might have served as a cordon sanitaire between East and West, much as Austria and Yugoslavia did further south. Without the military stand-off in Central-Europe, much of the imperative for the prolonged American presence in Europe, NATO, the Warsaw Pact, and the Cold War in general would have been defused. It would have been difficult, and obviously with Adenauer in Bonn and John Foster Dulles running the State Department there was no realistic chance of a deal over Germany. In more optimal political circumstances however, there might have been some real hope to an early disentanglement of Europe, with Germany leading the way.
BTW for sake of historical interest, for the historians out there, here is Harold Nicholson's account of the Molotov-Bevin meeting in London in 1947. The entire account may be abbreviated for flair, but essentially captures the complexes held by both sides on the question of what to do with Germany:
“Mr Molotov [...] what is it that you want? What are you after? Do you want to get Austria behind your iron curtain? You can't do that. Do you want Turkey and the Straits? You can't have them. Do you want Korea? You can't have that. You are putting your neck out too far, and one day you will have it chopped off...You are playing a very dangerous game...if war comes between you and America in the West, then we shall be on America's side. Make no mistake about that. That would be the end of Russia and your Revolution...What do you want?”
“I want a unified Germany,” said Molotov.
“Why do you want that? Do you really believe that a unified Germany would go communist? They might pretend to. They would say all the right things and repeat all the correct formulas. But in their hearts they would be longing for the day when they could revenge their defeat at Stalingrad. You know that as well as I do.”
“Yes,” said Molotov, “I know that. But I want a unified Germany.”
|
On November 14 2012 05:01 Holy_AT wrote:
The german government and law is far to lenient with nazis. They are allowed to parade they even get police protection,
I mean WTF ? These people should be put in jail and their leaders deserve worse.
Only a dead Nazi is a good Nazi but people have learned nothing and they wont.
Yeah, Free speech is such a horrible thing.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 14 2012 03:30 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 03:18 oneofthem wrote:
yes, i am a nazi. any questions.
the amount of vexation is usually correlated to the length of the response. still, the proposition that moral sanctions against nazis by the mere label is pretty good still stands. Nah, you're whatever circumstances and opportunity force you to be due to lack of energy and will. That's why you're a potential fellow-travelling Nazi, rather than a leading one like Hitler, Goebbels or Hess. There was a day when the uppity fantasist had to match their verbal extroversion with physical exertion (or, by the age of Gladstone, at least ride around in a train cart.) Nowadays we can do the rabble-rousing from a keyboard, and that's why any great movement in the past 2000 years will rip our little armies to shreds.
yes, someone who supports a strident anti-nazi stance, on those terms, is a nazi. the bare logic of your position is not much richer than that.
|
This thread title... Was about to whip out my swastika armband.
|
On November 14 2012 06:14 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 03:30 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 14 2012 03:18 oneofthem wrote:
yes, i am a nazi. any questions.
the amount of vexation is usually correlated to the length of the response. still, the proposition that moral sanctions against nazis by the mere label is pretty good still stands. Nah, you're whatever circumstances and opportunity force you to be due to lack of energy and will. That's why you're a potential fellow-travelling Nazi, rather than a leading one like Hitler, Goebbels or Hess. There was a day when the uppity fantasist had to match their verbal extroversion with physical exertion (or, by the age of Gladstone, at least ride around in a train cart.) Nowadays we can do the rabble-rousing from a keyboard, and that's why any great movement in the past 2000 years will rip our little armies to shreds. yes, someone who supports a strident anti-nazi stance, on those terms, is a nazi. the bare logic of your position is not much richer than that.
It doesn't matter if you don't understand the underlying futility of your position, or try to disassociate yourself via sophism and connotative manipulation. It doesn't even matter if you don't think of yourself as a Nazi. The lesson here is that you fit the moral profile of Nazism, and by labeling and sanctioning you as such, I am teaching a valuable lesson to not only Germany, but all of humanity.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
okay. i'll be sure to + Show Spoiler + to fit this moral profile.
i don't think i should be saying that, so i'll just call you a nazi instead.
|
As far as I know as a non-German, Streitbare Demokratie (fortified democracy) is a fairly unique system in that it partialy denies democracy to guarantee democracy. Because of this, Germany is actually the least likely country to have fascist regime like Nazi. Other countries have much higher risk political system-wise. It is debatable that such system which can outright deny the result of democratic election based on party belief is good or bad, but I personally think it is an excellent idea that not many countries adopt unfortunately. Germany learned the lesson that democracy has a deficiency: a political party that wants to deny democracy can ironically come into power through democratic means. I would rather fear Nazi or Nazi-like parties coming into power in other parts of the world. Germany is the farthest from it in my perspective. Maybe Germans in this thread can enlighten us more on this.
|
On November 14 2012 06:14 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 03:30 MoltkeWarding wrote:On November 14 2012 03:18 oneofthem wrote:
yes, i am a nazi. any questions.
the amount of vexation is usually correlated to the length of the response. still, the proposition that moral sanctions against nazis by the mere label is pretty good still stands. Nah, you're whatever circumstances and opportunity force you to be due to lack of energy and will. That's why you're a potential fellow-travelling Nazi, rather than a leading one like Hitler, Goebbels or Hess. There was a day when the uppity fantasist had to match their verbal extroversion with physical exertion (or, by the age of Gladstone, at least ride around in a train cart.) Nowadays we can do the rabble-rousing from a keyboard, and that's why any great movement in the past 2000 years will rip our little armies to shreds. yes, someone who supports a strident anti-nazi stance, on those terms, is a nazi. the bare logic of your position is not much richer than that.
Well, it seems to me that the point was that a propensity for parroting things without reflection makes it simply a matter of historic happenstance wether you are a Nazi or not .A point well made I thought.
Even apparently self-evident truth like "Nazis are bad" become little more then articles of faith when not backed up by critical thought. After all, who is to say that the next "great leader" will not declare his enemies Nazis and send them to centralization quarters to be reeducated. Which is so much easier to do after we have been taught to mindlessly repeat "Nazis are bad" without thinking about why.
On November 14 2012 06:03 Saumure wrote:
I totally agree with that DNA thing. But it gets worse: there are a lot of turkish people living in germany. Their great grandfathers took part at the armenian genocide in the early 20th century. With this kind of DNA in only ONE country, I am afraid the next Holocaust could already be in preparation.
Dude, we're on it, with the Euro and all. But don't worry, France is in on it, much like last time!
|
|
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On November 14 2012 04:17 SilentchiLL wrote:
How did the OP remain unchanged for so long when so many posts call it out for being badly written when it's about a topic like this?
Kinda disappointing.
You should ask the OP that, for example by PMing him about it.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't think it's a mere case of parroting when kids are shown at least actual historical facts of what the nazis did. you cannot just use some 17th century prose to turn education into parroting/propaganda/partial representation etc.
whatever morality tale that this guy thinks is more important than the powerful lessons of political vigilance against nazi style ideas isn't all that important.
|
On November 14 2012 06:27 oneofthem wrote:
okay. i'll be sure to grill some jew children to fit this moral profile.
Yeah, denial via feigned opposition is a tactic typical of soft-Nazi tactics. As NDP-leader Udo Voigt pronounced several years ago: Hitler ist tot. The NDP is not a "Führerpartei." No doubt somewhere in his platform is also a pledge not to burn Jewish children.
These are the tactics of Modern Nazis: Denying their Nazism. The only original thing here is American Nazis (see stormfront) are much more likely to employ sarcasm than their more grave German counterparts. Hand-in-glove Nazi here. 
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On November 14 2012 05:31 PerryHooter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 05:01 Holy_AT wrote:
The german government and law is far to lenient with nazis. They are allowed to parade they even get police protection,
I mean WTF ? These people should be put in jail and their leaders deserve worse.
Only a dead Nazi is a good Nazi but people have learned nothing and they wont. That's not what I heard, although I might be wrong since I'm not German. What I've heard is that there are anti-nazi laws in Germany, for instance it's a crime to publicly display the swastika symbol. Or am I wrong?
You are more or less right, although this isn't entirely correct. It is not the symbol that is outlawed. Simply put, you cannot show the swastika in a political context. It is still perfectly fine in for example educational or artistic context.
Like any society, Germany too has her limits to Freedom of Speech. They might appear more strict to outsiders, but really they are just different lines in the sand.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
okay, can you tell the world what important historical realities are ignored by the education system in germany and how does inclusion change how the nazis look. being a historian you'd be pretty good at this. i know nothing about what german skools teach.
how would you improve the education on the nazi episode.
|
On November 14 2012 06:33 oneofthem wrote:
i don't think it's a mere case of parroting when kids are shown at least actual historical facts of what the nazis did. you cannot just use some 17th century prose to turn education into parroting/propaganda/partial representation etc.
whatever morality tale that this guy thinks is more important than the powerful lessons of political vigilance against nazi style ideas isn't all that important.
Sorry, but
oneofthem wrote: still, the proposition that moral sanctions against nazis by the mere label is pretty good still stands.
is the position I am calling out here. Education teaches critical and independent thought (ideally). Attaching a label and and blanket condemnation is not eduction, it's the very definition of propaganda. Propaganga for all the right reasons maybe, but propagana nontheless.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 14 2012 06:45 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 06:33 oneofthem wrote:
i don't think it's a mere case of parroting when kids are shown at least actual historical facts of what the nazis did. you cannot just use some 17th century prose to turn education into parroting/propaganda/partial representation etc.
whatever morality tale that this guy thinks is more important than the powerful lessons of political vigilance against nazi style ideas isn't all that important. Sorry, but Show nested quote + oneofthem wrote: still, the proposition that moral sanctions against nazis by the mere label is pretty good still stands.
is the position I am calling out here. Education teaches critical and independent thought (ideally). Attaching a label and and blanket condemnation is not eduction, it's the very definition of propaganda. Propaganga for all the right reasons maybe, but propagana nontheless.
there is a part of that ideal, critical exchange of ideas, but there is also value building. an exercise that is not of the same kind, does not involve the same brain parts.
when someone denies that, for example, racism against immigrants or antisemitism is bad, then you are supposed to condemn the guy. it's not so hard to figure out. the sort of limp weak relativism isn't going to stand up, especially against raw, primal hatred of the kind represented by true believers in the nazi type movements.
yes to open examination of facts, but also yes to upholding base rock moral principles. (if i call it, teaching moral values, some relativist might scream bloody murder. deal with it)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
