We are aware that is your opinion.. disturbingly often expressed I would say
.
Who is "we" and why is it disturbing to remember the past and learn from it. Perhaps you find my views disturbing because they are views you find hard to listen to or accept. Why is it disturbing for me to express views that you dont agree with? would you prefer a censored forum, where only views that conform to your own are allowed to be aired? now that is a disturbing thought because it harks back to the very things i have spoken about.....and they revolve around the Nazi debasement of human values and the basic freedoms we have all come to enjoy and be accustomed with .
But IMHO German guilt in World War II is not to be used by other nations to forget about their guilt as well.
Im glad you qualify this as your opinion. Trying to shield german war guilt by dressing up the alleged crimes of other nations and then saying because they did something that excuses the germans. It doesnt. in law, as well as in the application of basic human rights, the carrying out of one crime is not erased or cancelled out by another. The only exception to that, and its a biggy, is if a nation or person is taking steps to defend themselves from anothers agression. Germany was not defensding itself, other nations were. After the war the germans were found guilty as a nation of waging aggressive war. That was a precondition to many things, including the indictment of many Germans on war crimes. its why other nations, like the british could never have its personnel indicted for war crimes under the legislation as it existed in 1945. The british were not guilty of waging aggressivfe war, therefore, none of its personnel could be indicted for war crimes under international law as it existed at that time.
If two people are guilty of a crime, then they are both guilty. Both are not exonerated because the other one did it as well.
But nobody embarked on a spree of national criminality to the same extent as Germany. There were nations that in their own way were as murderous as the germans, like some elements of the hungarian regime for example. none approached the Germans in terms of the scale or malevolence. Not even the Soviets. The Soviets committed their crimes from the position of social immaturity
I suspect agenda of many who go great lenght about discussing German guilt is really about not discussing their own guilt.
In the case of the british and the commonwealth, there was no case to answer under international law. none of the commonwealth nations or the british were guilty of waging aggressive war, so there was no case to answer outside the national criminal codes. This is why the many attempts to say the british committed a crime with their area bombing strategies is just so much hot air. it was not contrary to any military code, or convention (it is now, i admit, but not in 1945). The british did not target their own people, or people who had surrendered to them. There was not the systemic abuse of morals that there was in germany. where criminal acts occurred, it was within the ability of the criminal justice system in each country to deal with that crime. The Germans had descended to the point in their moral code could no longer function as amodern, moral state, because the state itself was rotten to the core.
They want to forget their guilt, and by talk only about German guilt. Everyone should deal with their own past. Germany did. It needs no externals from countries who did NOT deal with their past to give 'lessons' about something they did not learn themselves.
Germany did not deal with their war guilt. thats the problem. It was dealt with for them. by the very people you want out.
I cant answer for every nation, but i can answer for germany, and I can answer for my own country. These are the facts, Germany was found after the war to have waged an aggressive war, and from that to have carried out numerous attrocities, including genocide. thats why other nations have intervened with germany since 1945. Left to their own devices they proved to be decidedly unhealthy to the well being of nations that surrounded them. So, whilst you may be expressing the heartfelt wishes of many, there are many more, who know that Germany after the war unconditionally surrendered, but only after they had forced many nations around them to expend much blood and treasure making sure that the german idea of "dealing with their past" did not raise its ugly head again. The German idea of "dealing with their past" was to be xenophobic in the extreme, and involved the employment of concepts like genocide, the abandonment of leagal or moral codes, to murder anyone they did not like, without trial, to wage wars of aggression and attempt to subjugate anyone they thought to be useful or in their way. Thats why Germany was dealt with in the way that it was after the war. Their wartime actions cost them the right to self determination or self defence for many years, and to this day affects their moral image. In the eyes of the law, the crimes have been dealt with, so in a legal sense Germany's debt to the world has been paid. But from the moral standpoint, the Germans have never been able to cast off that terrible stigma that attached itself to the national psyche after the Nazis. and neither should it. I have 50 million reasons for saying that. we should never forget what was done. forgive yes, forget, never
In the case of my country, I would be the last to try and claim perfection or pure innocence. But my country was never guilty as a nation of waging an aggressive war, it was never guilty of genocide, or murder on a national scale. I am sure that there are things we could have done better, but there is no comparison between the moral position reached by my country, and that which the germans reached by 1945. sorry, but you argument to try and lift Germany out of its dilemma by comparing it to my country is just laughable
As for the concept of Germany, German people need no allowance and no approval from anyone else to exist in the country of their own. The concept of Germany is a sovereign, unified country of many nations that exist and governed by German law and firmly held principles of constitution.
I agree that germany has paid a price for its indiscretions, but a memory still remains, not least within the German state itself. No nation exists on itself, or by itself, we are all interconnected. German guilt and moral dilemma affects us all, not just the germans.
Sorry, you are factual wrong.. Germany, even under Hitler had no plans of 'world domination'. Maybe the Kaiser had, or more like he wanted a 'place under the sun' too. The 'secret nazi world domination plans' was a the propaganda brainchild of FDR administration, who tried to convince American people to convince war, and produced a number of faked - allegad nazi - plans for the public that showed South America was targeted to colonize by Hitler
.
I disagree. Certainly people like FDR and churchill played the "aggression" charge for all it was worth, but many people, including many scholars have named germany as the wager of aggression at that time. In a legal sense, your position is a nonsense....germany was found guilty of waging aggressive war, illegally subjugating many peoples. if the Germans had not been stopped do you honestly believe they would have stopped at the borders of Europe???? Even within the context of wartime planning, they had serious (if rather vague) ideas about conquests in the Atlantic, Afric, the subcontinent and the middle east that I know of. they had designs inhto South America. German appetite for conquest proved bigger than their means, but if they had the means they would not have hesitated to continue their wars of conquest
Also if you want to better understand who really had 'pursue dreams of world domination' I suggest to study this map careful:
There is no comparison between the British empire and the Nazis. you have got to be kidding. In the case of my country, there was no feelings of subjugation or domination. we were a nation of free men, wilingly offering our services to the home country in its hour of need. That was also the case in South Africa New Zealan and Canada. Other parts of the empire were less free, but neither did they exist as nations. moreover, Britains empi8re was the product of several hundred years of colonilaism, applied at a time when it was not seen as distasteful or illegal. Applying the standards of International law to an entity that existed for many years prior is just a little too cute for my taste I am afraid, and completely irrelevant to the issue I might add.