http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=7716331
About 12,000 protesters, many carrying banners reading "Bush go home," "No. 1 Terrorist" and "Warmonger," marched through the German city of Mainz on Wednesday, but were mostly kept away from the visiting U.S. president.
"You can bomb the world to pieces but not into peace."
"Bush, No. 1 Terrorist."
German police confiscated one poster that read: "We had our Hitler, now you have yours."
"We don't want your type of freedom."
"We don't need no cowboys."
Bush's visit contrasted with that of his father to Mainz in 1989 when large crowds cheered Bush senior for his calls for the Berlin Wall to be torn down.
Other U.S. presidents have also been given a hero's welcome in Germany [] "When John F. Kennedy came to Germany he drove through cheering crowds," said Mark Reichelt, 20, a student. "Now Bush is here and will drive through empty streets."
In other words: When Germany was dependable on the USA, they cheered and sucked up to them, but now that it play on an almost eye-level contact field with Europe as backforce, they get all pissy and supposedly ethical. Don't believe that shit for a second, esp. with the new nazi parties still rising, both in the west and east.
>but now that it play on an almost eye-level contact field with Europe as backforce, they get all pissy and supposedly ethical.
Much of this is probably caused by Germany's decision on Iraq and the resulting discussion. They made a decision which was supported by their politicians and, most importantly, the people. It is true they didn't always have this option when they were dependent on others during the Cold War. Why they shouldn't make their own decisions now that they can is beyond me.
>Don't believe that shit for a second, esp. with the new nazi parties still rising, both in the west and east.
Pretty much any democracy has small extreme-right parties. What does this have to do with German politics, where I believe these parties have no influence on country level?
> Why they shouldn't make their own decisions now that they can is beyond me.
No, they should make "their own decicions". But I don't think "a decision which was supported by their politicians and, most importantly, the people" is a good criterion for good politics, esp. considering Germany. Total war, anyone?
And it's just funny to me that 60 years after WW2 they can send own military and troops to the Balkans again (for "humanitarian" reasons that were even more phoney than any WMD suspicion) while on the other hand they point fingers on those with their own agendas.
> What does this have to do with German politics, where I believe these parties have no influence on country level?
They do indeed have influence on country level, even though they are just starting up. Also, the main problem here isn't the nazi parties but the fact that they are acquiring what's more and more acceptable in Germany as the political middle field. It's almost uncanny how the major parties and the right-wing parties are passing the ball to each other - even though the only thing that is audible, so to speak, is the "moral outrage" from time to time (i.e. during and shortly after the elections).
I am not saying that the new nazis will make up Germany's next government. But from a country that always had its own agenda which, in a pure analysis of power, isn't too different from the USA's, and in which, in some countries, the neonazis make 3rd or 2nd place in the elections - I just don't buy any ethical arguments from them. They should mind their own business, for all I care.
>But from a country that always had its own agenda which, in a pure analysis of power, isn't too different from the USA's,
I doubt any country would have a self-destructive agenda in this "pure analysis of power" of yours - whatever it is.
>esp. considering Germany.
You seem to be thinking that the Germans have learned nothing from the second world war. You also seem to be thinking that they aren't about the most ashamed of any people in the world for the war. And in any case, they were quite severely punished for it already. I doubt it is fair to still judge this people by what their grand- and grand-grandparents did.
Don't forget that the original nazi party managed to get lots of support by using the over-dimensioned "punishments" for the first world war as a tool. "Restoring honour" suddenly started sounding good to a lot of people.
>and in which, in some countries, the neonazis make 3rd or 2nd place in the elections - I just don't buy any ethical arguments from them.
Careful. I think your ad hominem is showing.
> You seem to be thinking that the Germans have learned nothing from the second world war.
They learned that afterwards they needed to shut up publically about a lot of things. That's it.
Allow me to quote a little bit from a study published in 2004 by the Institut für Konflikt-
und Gewaltsforschung at the university of Bielefeld which was carried out in all of Germany:
68.3% think that "Israel is leading a war of extermination (original: Vernichtungskrieg, a specific term coined in the Third Reich) against the Palestinians."
51.2% think "what the state of Israel is doing with the Palestinians is essentially the same what the nazis did with the jews in the Third Reich."
> You also seem to be thinking that they aren't about the most ashamed of any people in the world for the war.
More quotes:
68.3% are angry that the Germans are still made responsible for the crimes against the jews
62.2% are tired of hearing about the German crimes commited against the jews.
21.5% think that jews have "too much influence" in Germany.
> And in any case, they were quite severely punished for it already. I doubt it is fair to still judge this people by what their grand- and grand-grandparents did.
Their children inherited the money stolen from jews deported into the concentration camps and earned by the slave work done there. Sever punishment my ass, only a few nazis were executed after WW2,
the majority managed to continue in the new parties that formed afterwards and continued working for the big companies.
They also still drive on the Autobahnen the nazis built and enjoy several other artefacts created during the Third Reich these days, and thus I think it is not unfair to demand that they also inherit the guilt.
> Don't forget that the original nazi party managed to get lots of support by using the over-dimensioned "punishments" for the first world war as a tool. "Restoring honour" suddenly started sounding good to a lot of people.
So what? You getting apologetic now?
> Careful. I think your ad hominem is showing.
That's no ad hominem. You should better look the definition for that specific fallacy up again.
> But I don't think "a decision which was supported by their politicians and, most importantly, the people" is a good criterion for good politics, esp. considering Germany.
Democracy sure sucks, don't it?
> Democracy sure sucks, don't it?
What sucks even more is to not be able to see beyond your own horizon.
> What sucks even more is to not be able to see beyond your own horizon.
Except for Lebensraum, of course.
You can't only have democracy when the people decide on things you like.
First,
>That's no ad hominem. You should better look the definition for that specific fallacy up again.
That's correct. I totally fail at trying to look smart, even if I did try to mix in some humour.
However, what I was trying to say still stands: stating that one should ignore the opinions of an entire people because of the voting behaviour of a minority inside it is quite ignorant.
>68.3% think that "Israel is leading a war of extermination (original: Vernichtungskrieg, a specific term coined in the Third Reich) against the Palestinians."
Well, what if Israel is doing that? Agreeing with the statement could also be a result of being more interested in genocides and them NOT happening - I have no way of knowing why a majority said that, but saying that Israel is doing something wrong is in no way automatically connected to Germany in any way at all.
>62.2% are tired of hearing about the German crimes commited against the jews.
I certainly would be. Finland participated on the axis side in WWII, and I would certainly be annoyed if someone kept more or less defining me through what that generation did during the war.
>21.5% think that jews have "too much influence" in Germany.
A 21.5% minority. This one really does look bad though. I admit that.
>Their children inherited the money stolen from jews deported into the concentration camps and earned by the slave work done there. Sever punishment my ass, only a few nazis were executed after WW2,
Unless they were some of the tens of thousands of children firebombed to death in Dresden alone, of course. Also, I'd guess the funds "inherited" were probably nothing compared to the huge cost of rebuilding the country.
You completely fail to mention that one generation after the war already has lived an entire life of guilt. The cutting in half of the entire country is also no small punishment.
Finally, how does this process of "inheriting guilt" work? Who gets to inherit? Do you have to have a German passport to qualify? What if you've only gotten citizenship recently? If anyone is to inherit the guilt, it should be the entirety of humanity. You and I are just as much connected to the Holocaust as the Germans born now. I can possibly see why I should feel guilt. I totally fail to see why Germans, and no one else should though.
You are missing my point. I am arguing that politics, in general, cannot be ruled to be good or bad simply by looking if a people and their leaders or leader are in favor of it. Good example: Nazi German - though it was a dictatorship, the people voted Hitler to power and they cheered, hailed and yelled YES when Goebbels asked them if they wanted the Total War.
> stating that one should ignore the opinions of an entire people because of the voting behaviour of a minority inside it is quite ignorant.
The minority is large enough to be significant. You being in favor of your Finnish political minority system should know the benefits and downfalls of that good enough. Would 21.5% be significant enough in Finnland?
> but saying that Israel is doing something wrong is in no way automatically connected to Germany in any way at all.
Unless you are in fact a German, as were the people interviewed.
> I would certainly be annoyed if someone kept more or less defining me through what that generation did during the war.
Sorry, that's what you get for being different and part of a larger group of people. There is no common exception in this: To a degree everybody is an outsider or alien somewhere on earth. The question here, though, is whether and how the perceptions are in check with reality and how that justifies any further actions and reactions.
My verdict is that the international community, for which you are a good example, is giving the Germans far more credits than they deserve.
> the tens of thousands of children firebombed to death in Dresden alone
Oh noes, the children. Spare me the propaganda, I know it far too well. Hey look, German politicans have found out they have their own holocaust. "Everybody suffered in WW2" - that's the typical German way of coming to terms with its past (in two different shades by the way - either in saying that suffering cannot really be compared, neither in numbers nor in motivations behind creating it - or in saying that the German suffering was somehow equal in importance and reality).
> Also, I'd guess the funds "inherited" were probably nothing compared to the huge cost of rebuilding the country.
Yeah, I am sorry. That whole part about Germany becoming one of the leading global industrial nations was a lie all along - the Deutsche Bank has NO influence whatsoever! IT WAS ALL JUST A HOAX! THE MARSHALL PLAN DID NOT EXIST!
> You completely fail to mention that one generation after the war already has lived an entire life of guilt.
I failed to mention it because it is insignificant and because that whole "guilt" was merely more than a bit of export culture, packaged into the diplomatic veil of remorse which has now over the decades transformed into historical responsbility - a good reason to finally wage war again.
> The cutting in half of the entire country is also no small punishment.
Oh noes, country cut in half. Maybe it should rather have been quartered or more! Also, Germany has been reunified for almost 15 years now.
> Who gets to inherit? Do you have to have a German passport to qualify?
There's something called materialistic dialectics. Check it out sometime! Also, I suggest reading up a bit on history and maybe even political theory.
>That's no ad hominem.
Yes it is.
ad hominem adj : appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason); "ad hominem arguments"
You seem to hate all Germans as a whole. The Germans are good guys as a whole. It's the politicians and the army leaders who were rotten. Germany isn't even a race, it's a group of people designed so by a human-made, artificial frontier. Your hate doesn't make any sense.
> ad hominem adj : appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason); "ad hominem arguments"
I don't know where you pulled that definition from, but it's simply wrong. You can read up on the real meaning here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem
Also, if my argument was fallacious at all, it would most likely have been a negative form of an ad populum.
> The Germans are good guys as a whole.
You seem to love all Germans as a whole, blah blah blah.
We can sling assertion concerning each other's emotional dispositions at each other all day, ain't gonna help a thing.
To return to the passport thing: I don't hate anyone simply because of a citizenship he has or language he speaks. But there's a simple and reasonable disgust for the content and proud majority (or significant minority) who only resent Hitler for having lost WW2.
> It's the politicians and the army leaders who were rotten.
And the millions who voted the politicans to power, who denunciated their jewish neighbours to be able to steal their wealth, the hundreds of thousands who served in the SS, Gestapo and Wehrmacht and committed horrible crimes for "the good cause of the German people" while meanwhile at home, millions and millions were still cheering and hailing.
I am sorry to tell you this, since you seem to be a pretty naïve kind of humanist, but it was the German people who were rotten. I am sure the thousands of communists and jews, the handful or resistance fighters and the other minorities who felt themselves to be Germans even after the nazis were voted into office will forgive me this generalization.
> it's a group of people designed so by a human-made, artificial frontier.
Right, that's what politics are all about. And thus Germany should feel responsible for it since it is clearly standing in a historical tradition.
I see your point perfectly.
> But I don't think "a decision which was supported by their politicians and, most importantly, the people" is a good criterion for good politics, esp. considering Germany.
What I am saying is that you're advocating dictatorship because you don't agree with the people of Germany. Never mind if they're right or wrong - you're saying they're not fit to decide their own fate. That is not compatible with democracy.
speaking as a recent citizen of israel, i'd just like to say that if israel were to fight a war of extermination against the palestinians, it would be over in a matter of hours.
about 7 months ago i was visiting a friend in ramallah for a weekend, right? then just a few israeli tanks and apcs showed up, and suddenly my 2 day stay was a 7 day stay.
militarily, israel is so much stronger than the palestinians that they could walk in and kill every single one of them in a matter of days.
if you think that israel wants to do that, then you are simply wrong. besides, you have no idea how much cheap palestinian labor is used in the israeli system. israel benefits greatly from the palestinian presence.
> What I am saying is that you're advocating dictatorship because you don't agree with the people of Germany.
No, I am advocating a kind of politics that were to aim for some kind of bilateral consensus.
I know that. But the unfortunate thing is that every country has its export culture and its import cultures. Local perception of foreign circumstances are usually blurred by the media that transport the neccessary informations, images and ideology.
That's not a moral verdict but rather an ascertainment of facts, by the way.
Bilateral with whom? The question at hand was opposing the war in Iraq, no? Who does Germany have to ask permission from to not fight?
> Bilateral with whom?
That's very subjective. It's also not a matter of permissions, as we are talking about sovereign states here. Aside from the rational arguments for or against the war, the relational issues of loyalty and solidarity were also present in this case.
It was a very soothing fact that by the time Germany decided to cut some substantial ties with the USA, only the UK and the governments of Spain and Australia were in favor of the Americans and their politics. So, it could be said that a large, international consensus was indeed achieved with Germany saying no to the war in Iraq (whilst it shouldn't be forgotten that they had been saying yes to the war against Yugoslavia a few years prior). But it's my subjective opinion that the current international community has been in very poor shape and has made very poor decisions in the recent past, most notably the UN.
And what does any of that have to do with:
> But I don't think "a decision which was supported by their politicians and, most importantly, the people" is a good criterion for good politics, esp. considering Germany.
I'm not letting go of that one quite yet.
>The minority is large enough to be significant. You being in favor of your Finnish political minority system should know the benefits and downfalls of that good enough. Would 21.5% be significant enough in Finnland?
I wouldn't for a second agree with you calling me a nazi even if we did have a nazi party with 21.5% support. It's an unreasonable generalization regardless of country or people.
>Oh noes, the children. Spare me the propaganda, I know it far too well.
I only mentioned children because you said that "oh noes the children have inherited $$$.". I used a different tone, of course. And I learned this in school in history class, and have no reason to believe that it didn't happen, nor do I have any reason to believe it wasn't a huge revenge for the whole war.
>Oh noes, country cut in half. Maybe it should rather have been quartered or more! Also, Germany has been reunified for almost 15 years now.
I'll respond to this if you explain how any of that argues against many suffering because the country was cut in half.
>There's something called materialistic dialectics. Check it out sometime! Also, I suggest reading up a bit on history and maybe even political theory.
There's something called debate too. I suggest you keep participating in it sometime. If you do, I suggest you thoroughly explain who exactly inherits guilt. I'd be delighted to also hear why Germans in particular have to inherit it - and if it means that everyone should feel enormous guilt all the time, since all peoples have some kind of atrocities in their pasts.
Unless you're trolling, of course. I can't really judge whether you're doing that at this point, since trolls usually say inflammatory things, and stop discussing after a short while. If you're not trolling, please continue (your opinions seem very strong to me, but you're very entitled to have them and welcome to share them).
> I wouldn't for a second agree with you calling me a nazi even if we did have a nazi party with 21.5% support. It's an unreasonable generalization regardless of country or people.
I didn't call anyone a nazi except the nazis in this debate so far. Be more precise if you wish to get a specific statement out of me that you want to jump on.
> I only mentioned children because you said that "oh noes the children have inherited $$$.".
You mentioned children for the sake of them being children and killing them is oh so horrible. I mentioned children because they are the children (or should I have said: offspring?) of the nazis who passed on their wealth to them.
About what did happen or did not happen in Germany: That largely depends on eye witness accounts of whom most have been German. It's pretty difficult to come to any objective figures here, since by the time Dresden got bombed, there were already large streams of refugees going through the whole country, Dresden included.
The motivation behind the attacks surely was not simple revenge, though. Dresden was a legitimate strategic military target for the Allies.
> I'll respond to this if you explain how any of that argues against many suffering because the country was cut in half.
Do you have any idea how largy Germany is, both in population and in surface? Those who "suffered" from the division were mostly a few hundred families in Berlin and around that area. That's nothing compared to the ethical cleansings that had been going on a few years prior to that, and I doubt many people in Germany cared about it (except for politicans and those who lost property to the Soviets) since they simply weren't affected by it. So suddenly you had to go through a stricter custom service when visiting your family in the east - big deal.
> I'd be delighted to also hear why Germans in particular have to inherit it - and if it means that everyone should feel enormous guilt all the time, since all peoples have some kind of atrocities in their pasts.
It's not about feeling guilty but about taking responsibility if you feel free to take over the material and historical benefits of the past, too. I don't feel like explaining it more concisely to you because honestly it feels like I am wasting my (and maybe your) time trying to.
dresden was bombed because the allies were not certain the war was over. it seemed clear that the war would be over soon, but it had seemed that way before. more than half the allied dead died after the liberation of paris. the germans tenacity is the only rational explanation for the bombing of dresden. it was sacrificed as an acceptable loss by the political leaders of germany. if they had accepted total surrender earlier, dresden would not have been bombed.
as an aside, i think its naive to think that countries act emotively. democracies and modern militaries act slowly, and involve hundreds of (mostly elderly) people to make any given decision, with dozens of layers between them and the real world. i think if you acquiesce to that assessment of how democracies and modern militaries function, then you have a lot of explaining to do to convince me that you can infect people with such a toxic level of hatred (a deeply personal and uncommunicative emotion) that it carries through a massive bureaucracy.
Jeez, this whole thread is an open invitation for non-sequitur debating. What was the point of >>1 again?
> it carries through a massive bureaucracy.
Families, newspapers & TV will do that.
i suppose we are just going to have to disagree then. i have a hard time imagining a senator or a general having any emotional response to what they see on cnn or read in the times. i know i don't have any emotional response to the news, and i lived in israel for 6 years.
and as far as families go... i will agree with you that if the sons and daughters of senators and generals were dying en masse that they might do something rash. but they aren't, and they never have been. there has never been a point in the history of civilization where a nation with the power to commit atrocities against their adversaries had the sons and daughters of the wealthy and powerful on the front lines. the british like to pretend as such, to think that their nobility endangered themselves in wars, but its just a national fable perpetrated by commisioned painters.
> i suppose we are just going to have to disagree then. i have a hard time imagining a senator or a general having any emotional response to what they see on cnn or read in the times.
I am not talking about the politicians getting emotionally moved here. A good politican is always too cynical for that. I am talking about the people on who, in the democraties at least, the politicans have to rely on somehow.
While you may not be affected by the news anymore, the majority of people in most countries do. There are many good reasons why most people don't base their opinions on facts but rather on what the media is willing to communicate to them.
And when I mentioned families I was thinking more along the lines of certain ideas, structures and wealth growing and transforming through time in a society, but ultimately rooted in the family as the smallest set in which the individual who actually votes, etc. is contained. A dying family member is a very short-term effect. The education and social position a family member can receive and the views he or she will subsequently be more or less likely to develop are taking effect over a longer period of time and there are a myriad of other factors which take even longer time to produce visible results. The individual may not notice this for a lifetime may not suffice to reveal all the hidden secrets of language, unquestioned ideas and whatnot. But the family ultimately carries it on.
> I am talking about the people
sometimes i think thats the greatest wisdom in representative democracy, and why all modern democracies are still representative. in that style of government, the people only matter for 1 day every 2 years or so, in the interval politicians are free to act with carte blanche, and usually do. popular support couldn't have forced an invasion of afghanistan after 9/11 if bush was adamantly against it, and popular support couldn't have forced the bombing of dresden if churchill (or whoever signed off on that mistake) was against it.
> But the family ultimately carries it on.
reminds me of the old psychologist's parable: "why are you an alcoholic?" brother one replies: "because my dad was". "why are you not an alcoholic?" brother two replies: "because my dad was".
environmental factors tend to cause perceptable reactions, but not predictable ones.
besides, wars dont last long enough for that sort of thing to matter. america didnt attack iraq for that reason, bush was already in his 50s when we attacked iraq first, his personality was set in stone. the british didnt bomb dresden for that reason, the war had been going on for only a few years.
> in the interval politicians are free to act with carte blanche
Uh, no. A democracy cannot wage war without popular support. That's one of the main reasons why democracies have almost never been waging war against each other in history so far.
either you're wrong, or by popular support you simply mean "50%+1". the american invasion of iraq has been consistently polling under that level there for almost an entire year now, yet they have no problems.
america and to a lesser extent the british have demonstrated over and over again with things like gulf war i, gulf war ii, the falkland islands campaign, and vietnam that a politician can start a war of their own accord, with no public consensus. do you agree with that part of what i say at least? if not, please tell me why.
to go on, once a war is established with or without public consensus, it is pretty easy to keep it going for years. vietnam was never popular. the falklands was never popular. gulf war ii was never popular.
democracies all have a knee-jerk patriotic fervor when it comes to war. how many prime ministers of england have been deposed in times of war? i'm not certain, but i think the answer is 1. how many u.s. presidents have been deposed in times of war? 2.
> vietnam was never popular.
But ultimately, it was ended because it was unpopular. 50%+x, exactly.
i had to look this up because i wanted to be sure about the statistics. according to wikopedia, the u.s. escalated the vietnam war in 1964 after the sinking of the maddox, and left in 1973. the lowest north vietnamese casualty estimate is 1.5 million, and was given by the nva, and is considered to be a gross understatement. the u.s. lost 58 thousand killed, 153 thousand combat wounded.
so that's what a grossly unpopular war under a fairly successful democracy looks like. 3 presidents, 9 years. kennedy, johnson, then nixon. and vietnam had nothing to do with why kennedy or nixon didn't serve second terms (and only a little to do with why johnson didn't).
9 years and 200k casualties!
if that doesn't prove that a democracy can fight an unpopular war i don't know what does.
also, kennedy never asked the legislature whether or not he could (or should) increase troop levels in vietnam. i'm not sure how it works in all democratic countries, but in england, the u.s.a., russia, and israel, the head of state is also the head of the military, and can order troop deployments with no legislative requirements.
the legislature can choose to not financially support those troops after some period of time which differs from country to country, but has that ever happened?
the head of state for all the democracies i'm familiar with can start a war on his own with no permission... and apparently keep it going for years and for thousands of deaths, despite however unpopular it is.
> if that doesn't prove that a democracy can fight an unpopular war i don't know what does.
I don't know where you meant to show me that the war was unpopular. Wars are always unpopular to a certain extent, and the propaganda it took to instigate the good and decent American families who sent their sons into some never-heard-of-before jungle simply wore off quickly after those years.
> but in england, the u.s.a., russia, and israel, the head of state is also the head of the military,
Certainly not in Germany! (ノ∀｀)
The ultimate question here is: Are the families of the country who have, during times of peace, become customized to a certain amount of freedom which allows them to do with their lives what they want, willing to support the war of their country / government with the manpower only them can provide. In war, you go and perhaps you will have to kill and perhaps you will have to die, two options which are rather unpopular, especially the latter and in the case of the latter the family will still remain to woe the death of their son (this is a pretty interesting question in how demographics and families with many sons or mainly just one son play into the public opinion on war and its consequences).
Now a war goes on for a few years, to begin with it was against the communist plague but now that a few hundred thousand decent men died and no victory in sight... The war got too unpopular to wage (although I agree it was continued longer than what would have been rational from a PR pov). Dictatorships can always force and lie the people into war pretty easily. In democracies, you cannot force everybody and lying is considerably more difficult.
i think we're discussing different things.
i used vietnam as an example because it's usually agreed to be the least popular war in recent american history (the revolutionary war was extremely unpopular i'm told, but that was in the 18th century). so in that sense, it was unpopular.
also, i don't agree when you say that wars are always unpopular. the spanish-american war, wwi, wwii, the korean war, and the invasion of bosnia were all tremendously popular with americans once they'd already begun. the germans have occasionally been fond of wars too; german popular support for wwi was tremendous, according to niall ferguson's "the pity of war" (what is the 'pity of war' according to ferguson, by the way? that we never seem to realize how bad it is until it years after it is over).
i still maintain my fundamental point that a democracy can wage an unpopular war, at least in israel, russia, england, and the u.s.a., because the head of state is the head of the military.
who is the head of military in germany by the way? an elected leader, a military leader, an appointed minister, the legislature as a whole?
>who is the head of military in germany by the way? an elected leader, a military leader, an appointed minister, the legislature as a whole?
in case of war (the germans coined the term "case of defence"), a situation to be declared by the parliament, the federal chancellor is the commander-in-chief of the germany military forces.
during peacetime, high command is formally held by the federal secretary of war/defence (since he reports to the chancellor in turn, that is, as mentioned, a mere formality).
The chancellor is elected indirectly; the parliament, which is elected by the people, then in turn elects the chancellor - theoretically any given candidate, in reality the candidate whose political compound(s) dominate the parliament.
>I didn't call anyone a nazi except the nazis in this debate so far. Be more precise if you wish to get a specific statement out of me that you want to jump on.
OK, I wouldn't agree to you generalizing me into some group or putting some responsibility or any other burden on me just because my people has a certain history and a certain result in a poll. Which brings me to....
>I don't feel like explaining it more concisely to you because honestly it feels like I am wasting my (and maybe your) time trying to.
No, please try to explain. I really am interested in seeing your point. This discussion hasn't stopped being civilized yet, so let's continue. And let's stop pointing out the way in which things are said, but rather look at what is said (I believe everyone has participated in the "meta-discussion" so far).
>You mentioned children for the sake of them being children and killing them is oh so horrible.
Ah, actually that wasn't my point (although from the phrasing it probably looked like it). My point was that you can't inherit something if you're dead. I think this takes away some of the status of the supposedly priviliged Germans..
>About what did happen or did not happen in Germany: That largely depends on eye witness accounts of whom most have been German. It's pretty difficult to come to any objective figures here,
Somehow I doubt that the only source of information on German death and destruction from the period would be eyewitness accounts. Surely lots of data on families survived, and the allied military no doubt accurately tried to asess the situation, both from air and ground.
The "depends only on [people's] eyewitness accounts" line of reasoning bothers me, because I've heard the exact same words from Holocaust deniers. They tend to say that "only jews are telling the stories from the camps" - unfortunately for them, historians don't "prove" the Holocaust through only that: they can see the profound societal change, in documents and otherwise. If there is a flaw in the process of documenting the second something happened, it isn't necessarily a problem.
>It's not about feeling guilty but about taking responsibility if you feel free to take over the material and historical benefits of the past, too.
The west inherited a destroyed country that had to be extensively rebuilt with Marshall aid - I can't see why the Germans would be to blame for the strategic aid system thought up by the US at the start of the cold war.
The East had to live in a totalitarian system until fairly recently - not as bad as the nazis, but clearly a state without freedom. Most support for far-left and far-right parties comes from the poorest areas in the East, I believe.
Finally, how are the Germans to take responsibility? How can they do it when apparently the generation which actually did something bad apparently couldn't do it well enough?
alexander, i've read this whole thread, and i just read your reply, and i don't understand what you're trying to say anymore. don't take this the wrong way, but what is your point? what is the conclusion your premises are attemping to proving?
> so in that sense, it was unpopular.
Yes, but it only became unpopular during its run.
> also, i don't agree when you say that wars are always unpopular.
I said they are always unpopular to a certain extent.
At the latest when some soldier lies in the dirt, becoming aware that he is gonna die for the sake of other people's idiocy or madness.
Wars are never absolutely popular or unpopular: If they were the latter, they would never have been fought to begin with and if the former then they would only end with the destruction of the enemy.
> i still maintain my fundamental point that a democracy can wage an unpopular war
From the get-go? Examples, please. I think democracies will only achieve this in cases of defense.
> OK, I wouldn't agree to you generalizing me into some group or putting some responsibility or any other burden on me just because my people has a certain history
That's the spam filters of reality and inherent in our social-cognitive processes. You simply cannot take the time to judge every single individual. So you generalize by larger sets. I don't think that the people of a nation are bad set to generalize by, especially when the members of that set are quite affirmative of their own set.
> No, please try to explain.
Can I put it in a metaphor? I want us all to remember the ways of the blood and the soil. And I want us to mind the things that we bought, lent, sold, bonded, leased, loaned, borrowed, and so on and so on from our forefathers down to our own offspring and children...
> My point was that you can't inherit something if you're dead. I think this takes away some of the status of the supposedly priviliged Germans..
Well, yes, the dead people died. There were people who lived. They built up this country and laid it into the hands of their beloved. What is your point?
> Somehow I doubt that the only source of information on German death and destruction from the period would be eyewitness accounts. Surely lots of data on families survived, and the allied military no doubt accurately tried to asess the situation, both from air and ground.
I am sorry, I meant to say "About what did happen or did not happen in Dresden:"
My bad.
> I can't see why the Germans would be to blame for the strategic aid system thought up by the US at the start of the cold war.
Please first admit that Germany was already technically rich after WW2.
> Finally, how are the Germans to take responsibility?
I think they should shut up more about certain issues. And I think they should stop giving money to Palestinian terrorists.
Those were some nice things to begin with.
you're changing the subject.
the point i am arguing against is this:
> A democracy cannot wage war without popular support
which i think you made, but it could be some other citizen, back in 33.
that is simply wrong. vietnam along with the other wars i listed prove that in a democracy where the head of state is also head of the military, once troops are committed, a war will go on for years and tens of thousands of deaths after becoming unpopular.
when some citizen said "wage war", they clearly meant to fight a war in a present tense. wars are started, then waged, then won. i never tried to argue that wildly unpopular wars can be started under democracies. i happen to believe that, but i don't care to support that belief, so you're welcome to that point if you'd like it: i never said that.
nor did i ever say that anything was ever absolutely popular or unpopular, or that anything in life is ever absolutely anything. so i don't know what your point in bringing that up was, unless you're changing the subject, which is fine... but if you're changing the subject, don't begin it as a reply.
>alexander, i've read this whole thread, and i just read your reply, and i don't understand what you're trying to say anymore. don't take this the wrong way, but what is your point? what is the conclusion your premises are attemping to proving?
Hello "Bush Go Home" people, sorry I dropped out of this thread. I freely admit that I've used more than half an hour/hour on some of the longer replies, making it hard to participate when I've been a bit more busy lately. I hope someone will still have use for my reply.
Sorry about the numbered points form, but this will get too messy otherwise. If the format makes it sound more angry, ignore that. What I've been trying to say is:
2. I see no reason to force Germany to make decisions like this today in a manner different from other countries.
3. The support for extreme parties in some German regions has nothing to do with what the country should do - especially since their support is strongest in poor regions, like in most democracies, and they form a minority anyway.
4. If we, however, are to generalize and view Germany as a monolithic entity, the minority extremists should be ignored anyway - this is a generalization, after all.
5. I see no reason to believe that the Germans would be anything else than regretful about the second world war - saying they have a separate "export culture" sounds more like a conspiracy theory than anything else - I have seen nothing to support the notion that Germans would be pleased with what happened back then. What I have seen, is lots of evidence to the contrary.
6. Saying that they're tired of hearing about what the Germans did to the Jews means they're tired of hearing what they did to the Jews. My other sources tell me this has been repeated over and over in Germany, and considering that I'm tired of hearing it too after agreeing with it being bad already, I don't blame them. The option would be that they haven't heard it too often and are tired of hearing it because they don't agree. I see nothing to support this, and it is the less probable option by default.
7. Saying Israel is doing something bad is in no way automatically anti-semitic. Saying the same thing when you're German is in now way automatically anti-semitic either. Saying that Jews have too much influence in your country is not automatically anti-semitic either (and I think such a loaded question could give quite "interesting" results in many countries, certainly not excluding the US, for instance).
8. I won't admit that Germany was "technically rich" after the world war. The East, which fell under communist rule has had to be extensively rebuilt after the reunification. Assuming the communists didn't bomb the country during their reign, that was the minimum starting level more or less. Also, if the allies needed to militarily bomb Germany to the point of destroying large cities, I cannot see how the country could have remained so very rich - what would have been left, would have been destroyed by land battles with few exceptions. Finally, if we are to make it a matter of money, the Germans have payed it back very nicely - my country is doing significant and beneficial trade for billions of euros with Germany as we speak.
9. Even if the Germans had been "technically rich" after the war, and even if they hadn't been more or less been controlled by greater powers into rebuilding (which they were), and even if they hadn't contributed significantly to other peoples' economic well-being, it should still have no impact on how the Germans should be treated today. Punishing someone for the economic conditions that happened to be present at the end of the war and for the subsequent rebuilding of the country is absurd, marxist philosophy or not.
10. Punishing those responsible for atrocities during the war is acceptable. It was done and is even still being done, even though the people responsible are now either exceedingly old or dead.
11. However, punishing someone completely different for atrocities committed during the war is absurd. These are entirely different individuals, and have done nothing. If they have opinions that are bad themselves, fine. Lots of countries will probably have way more visible "bad" opinions to attack (Le Pen/France as one example). But if nothing distinguishes them from other peoples other than what an earlier generation has done, they should only be judged as a people for what they are - and in the case of Germans, they definitely aren't strong militarists and nationalists, so they're essentially an entirely different people from the 1935-45 Germans.
12. Individuals can and will still do bad things and be judged, but like I stated above, if you generalize, the Germans are for all intents and purposes doing nothing bad.
13. Finally, even if the Germans would in fact be responsible for everything, if it would turn out that all Germans alive now actually served in the SS in WWII, I would still not agree with the opinion that they should shut up. Things that Germans say can be judged based on what they are saying. If they are spouting nazi propaganda, you won't need their family tree to realize it (right?). If they are saying "good" things, the same tree won't automatically turn it into nazi propaganda (right?). And about the whole "mind their own business" part....they're actively opposing going thousands of kilometres away to fight a war themselves, and protest in the streets of their own country. I think they're doing a pretty good job.
> i never tried to argue that wildly unpopular wars can be started under democracies
Alright, then we have settled that issue.
About you assumption that I was stalling: I really wasn't, but I will admit that I sure as shit don't have the motivation to explain why and how I did not - mea culpa.