Retribution against Germans after the war,graphic,not for everone

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The problem with retributive justice is as I posted before, two wrongs don't make a right. Taking "an eye for an eye" just results in two mutilated people instead of one. Its only purpose is cathartic, and that is retributive justice's other major flaw: it appeals to the worst side of human nature, our sadistic capacity for taking satisfaction in another's suffering. Hence it becomes questionable whether the punishers are really morally superior to the perpetrator.

Opposition to retributive justice has often been expressed, and reform of retributive laws has been growing in Western civilisation since the Enlightenment, also spreading to other cultures. Death penalties are still used in many countries, but public executions are now a thing of the past in all but the most extreme regimes. However, the retributive principle is still very popular, as expressed in public anger and demands for punishment whenever severe crimes are reported in the press. Prison sentences can also be regarded as at least partly retributive, on the understanding that incarceration is what wrongdoers deserve.

Those in Germany who perpetrated these hedinous crimes deserve severe punishment even to death beyond a shadow of a doubt BUT there is simply NO way to justify going into an ethnic German region, rounding up anyone who spoke German, lining them up against a wall and shooting them.
As Chris posted above do we root out the drunk's entire family? And how about all those who saw the drunk and did nothing and those who served the alcohol, and those who saw the accident and did not stop to help and.....

"When you're asked to stay out of a bar you don't just punch the owner--you come back with your army and tear the place down, destroy the whole edifice and everything it stands for. No compromise. If a man gets wise, mash his face. If a woman snubs you, rape her. This is the thinking, if not the reality, behind the whole Hell's Angels act."
― Hunter S. Thompson, Hell's Angels: A Strange and Terrible Saga

Excellent post.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Pity there isnt a button to dislike a whole thread. 2 people commenting on this thread should know better than to start spouting crap and threats, grow up the pair of you.

My apologies. You are correct. I let emotion get in the way.

 

[GrauGeist]

Sadly enough, the first casualties in a war are civilians.

It has been this way for thousands of years and it seems that even now, in the 21st century, we (as a society) have not learned a single thing from our long, dark past.

The words "genocide", "war crimes" and rules of warfare didn't exist until recently, and even still, doesn't do anything to stop an ancient practice.

Can you imagine what Social Media and news agencies would have to say about Rome's defeat of Carthage? Rome leveled the entire city and hunted down and killed all the Carthaginians as an example to anyone who would challenge Rome.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Sadly enough, the first casualties in a war are civilians.

It has been this way for thousands of years and it seems that even now, in the 21st century, we (as a society) have not learned a single thing from our long, dark past.

The words "genocide", "war crimes" and rules of warfare didn't exist until recently, and even still, doesn't do anything to stop an ancient practice.

Can you imagine what Social Media and news agencies would have to say about Rome's defeat of Carthage? Rome leveled the entire city and hunted down and killed all the Carthaginians as an example to anyone who would challenge Rome.

Unfortunately you are correct.

We as human beings however need to try and have more compassion for one another and do what we can to protect the innocents and those that have no choice to in the situation.

 

[mikewint]

War is not the question here as the war was over, the Germans defeated. I suspect that many motivations were at work, vengance certainly but I also suspect that avarice played a role. The executed and deported left behind all their property and many possessions. I wonder who appropriated them?
Harsh and terrible punishment is also seen as a deterrent. As in the old English "Bloody Code". It was known as the Bloody Code because of the huge numbers of crimes for which the death penalty could be imposed. It would seem as if every crime was punishable by death in the 1800s, even those which we would consider to be very minor or trivial today such as stealing a rabbit.
The number of crimes carrying the death penalty in 1688 was 50. By 1815 it was 215!
There were many reasons why the English legal system was so harsh at this time. Attitudes of wealthy men who made the law were unsympathetic. They felt that people who committed crimes were sinful, lazy or greedy and deserved little mercy. As the rich made the laws they made laws that protected their interests. Any act which threatened their wealth, property or sense of law and order was criminalised and made punishable by death.
You could be executed for stealing anything worth more than five shillings. The law was also to act as a deterrent. It was thought that people might not commit crimes if they knew that they could be sentenced to death. This was also the reason why executions were public spectacles until the 1860s. The authorities believed that hanging criminals in public would frighten people into obeying the law and refrain from committing crime. Traitors were hanged, maned, drawn, and quartered in public, in essence to deter any future traitors.
The Nazis did the same when they executed 100 for the death of one soldier to deter guerrilla attacks .
In the ancient times you mentioned above, Dave, I suspect the Romans, e.g. were motivated in much the same way as the Hell's Angels mentioned above, i.e. inducing abject fear in non-members. You don't have to fight if everyone is terrified and runs. Further the ancient idea of a "Blood Feud" as in the Hatfields and McCoys. If you kill the entire population there is no one left to seek vengeance.

 

[pbehn]

I do wish that the media would realise that history is more than Germany and the Nazis. If you examine any war you will find similar things. I have a TV program called "The History Channel" it only ever shows programs about WW2 and the Nazis. I do not excuse what the Nazis did in any way at all but I dont accept that Germany and Germans are forever to be considered a sort of homicidal race. Napoleons regime was just the same, so brutal on all people even their own the French that Wellington simply bought his way through France from Spain.

Here is an excerpt from an account of the Scottish army that invaded England in 1138

"Then (horrible to relate) they carried off, like so much booty, the noble matrons and chaste virgins, together with other women. These naked, fettered, herded together; by whips and thongs they drove before them, goading them with their spears and other weapons. This took place in other wars, but in this to a far greater extent."[11]
The practicalities of this would support the chroniclers' tales of sexual abuse of the slaves and casual slaughter of unsalable encumbrances:
"For the sick on their couches, women pregnant and in childbed, infants in the womb, innocents at the breast, or on the mother's knee, with the mothers themselves, decrepit old men and worn-out old women, and persons debilitated from whatever cause, wherever they met with them, they put to the edge of the sword, and transfixed with their spears; and by how much more horrible a death they could dispatch them, so much the more did they rejoice."[11]

If you read and think it is EXACTLY what ISIS are doing in Iraq and Syria

Things culminated in the Battle of the Standard at Northallerton where the Scots were defeated, now a nice north Yorkshire town in beautiful countryside. Am I permitted to harangue the Scots for this? When does it stop?

 

[mikewint]

Such testimony comes from all wars. How about the British and Americans linked by blood and history:
From 1776 to 1783, the British forces occupying New York City used abandoned or decommissioned warships anchored just offshore to hold those soldiers, sailors and private citizens they had captured in battle or arrested on land or at sea (many for refusing to swear an oath of allegiance to the British Crown). Some 11,000 prisoners died aboard the prison ships over the course of the war, many from disease or malnutrition. Many of these were inmates of the notorious HMS Jersey, which earned the nickname "Hell" for its inhumane conditions and the obscenely high death rate of its prisoners.
Christopher Vail, of Southold, who was aboard Jersey in 1781, later wrote:
'When a man died he was carried up on the forecastle and laid there until the next morning at 8 o'clock when they were all lowered down the ship sides by a rope round them in the same manner as tho' they were beasts. There was 8 died of a day while I was there. They were carried on shore in heaps and hove out the boat on the wharf, then taken across a hand barrow, carried to the edge of the bank, where a hole was dug 1 or 2 feet deep and all hove in together.
In 1778, Robert Sheffield of Stonington, Connecticut, escaped from one of the prison ships, and told his story in the Connecticut Gazette, printed July 10, 1778. He was one of 350 prisoners held in a compartment below the decks.
"The heat was so intense that (the hot sun shining all day on deck) they were all naked, which also served the well to get rid of vermin, but the sick were eaten up alive. Their sickly countenances, and ghastly looks were truly horrible; some swearing and blaspheming; others crying, praying, and wringing their hands; and stalking about like ghosts; others delirious, raving and storming,--all panting for breath; some dead, and corrupting. The air was so foul that at times a lamp could not be kept burning, by reason of which the bodies were not missed until they had been dead ten days."

 

[parsifal]

Mike, there are two principles really at the heart of what we are discussing. The first is the principle of retribution, the second is the principle of justice. Justice includes retribution but retribution does not constitute justice, and personal retribution has no place in achieving true justice.

At the end of the war, the problems faced by the victorious allies was that they had a nation that had so soaked itself in blood that it was difficult to separate the emotion of personal hatred for Germans and the desire to seek personal retribution from the concept of national responsibility, national war guilt if you like. Summary retribution of the kind advocated by Churchill and Stalin was not going to solve the problem. But neither could the nation of Germany be allowed to walk free unscathed. There was too much blood on the nations hands to allow that to occur.

To the great credit of the US attorney Jackson the Nuremberg trials offered a partial solution to at least some of this problem Nuremberg was actually a series of trials, but underpinning it was what has been referred to as the Nuremberg principles. These remain the foundation of war crimes justice. There are 7 principles, worth noting....

The Nuremberg principles were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations to codify the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials. They retain considerable relevance even today, though some have been modified over time

Principle I
"Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment."
This goes to individual responsibility. There were many persons from all the combatants who would meet this criteria.

Principle II
"The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law."
This principle has been rejected by the US in recent times. It is the main reason why it will not allow its personnel before the ICC. Such a defence was not open to the defeated German nationals in 1945. They effectively had no rights to challenge the forms of justice or retribution that were decided for them. Some wanted to just shoot the leaders and enslave the remainder. To his great and largely unnappreciated credit Jackson made sure this "justice" did not happen.

Principle III
"The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law." The person would not enjoy diplomatic immunity but would be held responsible under the eyes of international law. This principle can be applied in reverse, and it was at Nuremberg. The leader, or the "govt" is not held to be solely responsible under the code. Individuals are. held just as accountable.

Principle IV: Superior Orders
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him". This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".

Previous to the time of the Nuremberg Trials, this excuse was known in common parlance as "Superior Orders". After the prominent, high profile event of the Nuremberg Trials, that excuse is now referred to by many as the "Nuremberg Defense". In recent times, a third term, "lawful orders" has become common parlance for some people. All three terms are in use today, and they all have slightly different nuances of meaning, depending on the context in which they are used.

Nuremberg Principle IV is legally supported by the jurisprudence found in certain articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which deal indirectly with conscientious objection. It is also supported by the principles found in paragraph 171 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status which was issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Those principles deal with the conditions under which conscientious objectors can apply for refugee status in another country if they face persecution in their own country for refusing to participate in an illegal war.

Often, since the trials (and because of the harshness set down in other principles below) some have argued that the majority of Germans were not subject to scrutiny under the International justice system. But Nuremberg established some very significant legal precedents for this. The bar for moral choice is very high. A child is not subject to this principle, but an adult generally is. A man with a gun to his head, being ordered to shoot a nother man, still has a choice, though the extenuation is obvious.

This Nuremberg principle is unpopular because it removes a lot of emotion from the equation, and blows out of the water the sorts of defences being presented here in this debate. But please read on.

Principle V
"Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law." This again is a major criticism of the Nuremberg Trials, but the principle itself was a critical addition insisted and achieved by Jackson (and others) in the setting up of the tribunals. Generally people criticise Nuremberg because they argue how was it possible for the defendants, or indeed the nation of Germany to receive a fair trial). There is an element of truth to this, but my response is that Nuremberg whilst vastly imperfect, was probably about as fair as it could be under the circumstances. The only other options were either the summary execution and national enslavement models advocated by the main leaders of the times, or let em go, rearm them and continue fighting as people like Patton advocated. There are colourations of these extremes to be sure, but in my view Nuremberg offered the best chances to a lasting peace, a lasting sense of justice that was available at the time.

Principle VI
"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."

Moreover, in order for any of the other preceding principles to be applied as a "war crime" . principle VI had to be established. When people try to argue that Dresden was a war crime, for example, they conveniently forget about this overarching principle. Its one of the main reasons why no member of the winning allied cause could be placed on trial. The surrender terms of 1945, in part, laid the blame for the war firmly at the feet of germany. it was in effect, and for the purposes of applying this principle, an admission by the entire nation of germany that they alone were responsible for the conflict. that admission has been grumbled about for nearly 50 years as people come out of the wood work to defend Germany, but I have no problem with it. For me, the person or nation who started it all, is important.

Principle VII
"Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law."

In the judgements that came out of Nuremberg, it was established that not only individuals were responsible for that, the entire nation of germany was held responsible. Thinking Germans allowed it to happen, they therefore share in the collective war guilt that is Germany's. Again, this is a major point of contention, as you can see.


In the case of the attrocities committed at the end of the war, they are technically not war crimes at least in the context of 1945 (they are so classified today) . They are crimes under the justice code, and what we might term "common law" but in 1945, the military occupations getting underway had lax applications of such principles, hence the numerous breaches of human rights. Stalin also had other ulterior motives for unleashing his barbarous hordes.....he was excocising all possible opposition to the Soviet occupation already, and what better way than to terrorise the civilian population.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And children should share that collective guilt? Children that had no say so. Children that in many cases where not even born.

That justifies the raping and killing...

 

[parsifal]

No, it does not. For the allies that committed crimes prior to the setting up of a military occupation, they needed to be tried under their respective crimnal codes. We know that did not happen, but those same soldiers would not have been in Germany in the first place if Germany had chosen its destiny more wisely.

For the germans however, the reason those foreign powers were there in the first place was because of actions they as a nation had taken.

The legal system offered the only way out. The tribunals set up after the war were the best option. The alternatives were much worse.

Many of the crimes committed during and just after the war went unpunished. German crimes were worse becuase many of them were state sanctioned. Even the russians after the war didnt quite go that far, though it made little difference to the outcome in that case. Eventually even the Russians had to reign in the terror they were inflicting and orders went out to restore order.

Looking for justice in the sense of dealing with every crime committed proved a hopeless task, but the Nuremberg principals lit the beacon for a way out .

The children of germany were victims like any children that suffered in the war. But, their carers had a collective say and chose, through the leaders they chose, to go the path of war. In that sense their parents made the choices for them.

In the case of the Jews, or any of the nations that Germany chose to make war on, such choice was taken away from them

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

But I thought none of them where innocent? You did say that. And because of that you have no sympathy for them.

The difference between you and me, is I have sympathy for all the victims and all the innocents. Fortunately I think most rational people feel the same way, and that is a good thing. It is what makes us better human beings than the people that we where fighting against to begin with.

 

[parsifal]

They are not innocent. They are German, that made them guilty. Not my opinion, not an attempt by me to flame this up even more than it already is, just a basic statement of fact (read on please) . They are the findings on which the Nuremberg trials were based. You are mixing up the words innocent and victim. I understand the determination to use crimes such as this to undermine the legal processes that indicted a whole nation, but they are feelings that cant be allowed to exist in the application of the law

They are guilty because as nationals of a country guilty of waging aggressive war (again not my opinion....but the judgement of a court of justice) their nation was the cause of all the suffering of that war. Because of their age the children you refer to have what is referred to as "diminished responsibility", but for good or bad they are still the (defeated) enemy . Being a national of a guilty nation does not make you automatically subject to summary punishment (or even, subject indictment as a war criminal), but it does make you automatically guilty of being a national of a nation found collectively guilty of waging agessive war, and therefore potentially subject to trial, provided the other principles are met. There is no way a dependant minor can ever be held responsible for the nations crimes. But the principle of collective guilt was an important foundation on which some justice could be achieved. For that reason I support the concept. One of the principles of the Nuremberg Charter (the right to a fair trial, which carries with it the presumption of innocence before conviction) ensures that in theory at least no child of that age would ever be found individually culpable. Say, for some insane reason a child was hauled before the tribunal the trial would not have lasted 5 minutes, because the foundation principles could not be met.

I have no sympathy for what happened doesnt mean i have no emotions (my feelings of no sympathy are personal, I keep them to myself, as I do my other my personal feelings of anger (at least thats what I try to do) at nations having to fight yet another war against a nation so self absorbed it failed to see the great crimes it was committing). I feel great sorrow for what happened, and I know that terrible crimes were done to many children of many nations. But the reason for this happening is directly linked to the decisions made by those childrens guardians to support a regime bent on aggressive war. That needed to be dealt with as a priority at the end of the war, and to a limited extent it was. Those Russians that did what they did was heinous, outside the law, and unfortunately untouchable. So too were many of the nazi criminals, but the difference was their country lost and was found guilty of waging aggressive war and hence committed a war crime. for the law as it existed in 1945 (it has changed since then) the Russians, whilst guilty of common rape and murder, were not guilty of a war crime. Thats not me trying to justify their actions, thats me applying the legal test that needed to be applied in 1945. They were there in Berlin because of what hitler decided to do, and Hitler was there because he was genuinely supported by the German nation.

Soft mushy feelings of sorrow and sympathy are nice luxuries to comfort oneself, or perhaps someone you know , but understanding the reasons and making sure they never happen again are, in my opinion, more important because they can be applied to both people you know and people you dont know, and, people you like and people you dont like. Your sympathy to someone you dont know is nice to hear but doesnt achieve much else and doesnt help them, and certainly leaves the issue of even partial justice unanswered. My opinion is that the conduct of the nuremberg trials, and the application of the principles that underpinned them whilst hard to accept as a person with german sympathies, are a better response to achieve tangibly improved peace conditions after the war.

 

[parsifal]

It is what makes us better human beings than the people that we where fighting against to begin with.

Having sympathy, or sorrow, or regret are important personal traits. Without it we are quite mindless. It doesnt make us better people if we are all sympathy and no action. And certainly the allies did not have a greater monopoly on sympathy (or any other superior human quality) compared to the Germans. Germans as individuals or even as groups showed great sympathy, kindness charity and mercy. We are no better than they. In the context of 1945 there is only one real difference......the Germans caused it all by starting it. Some of them committed terrible crimes. Some of ours also did. Id like to think more of theirs did more bad things than our guys, but that is hardly a reason to say something was terribly wrong in germany at wars end. What was wrong was that as a nation they had started a conflagaration that cost millions of innocent lives, including many from their own nation, including their children. Therein lies the bedrock of the crime. Some of its people in the institution of that national crime then went on to commit terrible further indictable crimes which are called war crimes. Some of the nation guilty and standing in the dock did nothing and were free to continue their lives. Some, under Soviet control unfortunately were not so free though they had not really done anything wrong

 

[pbehn]

They are not innocent. .

If you said "They were not innocent" you may have an argument, it is statements like that which hangs the guilt on present day German children. It is now 70 years since the second world war started, dont drag that into the present day.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

They are not innocent. They are German, that made them guilty. Not my opinion, not an attempt by me to flame this up even more than it already is, just a basic statement of fact (read on please) . They are the findings on which the Nuremberg trials were based. You are mixing up the words innocent and victim. I understand the determination to use crimes such as this to undermine the legal processes that indicted a whole nation, but they are feelings that cant be allowed to exist in the application of the law

They are guilty because as nationals of a country guilty of waging aggressive war (again not my opinion....but the judgement of a court of justice) their nation was the cause of all the suffering of that war. Because of their age the children you refer to have what is referred to as "diminished responsibility", but for good or bad they are still the (defeated) enemy . Being a national of a guilty nation does not make you automatically subject to summary punishment (or even, subject indictment as a war criminal), but it does make you automatically guilty of being a national of a nation found collectively guilty of waging agessive war, and therefore potentially subject to trial, provided the other principles are met. There is no way a dependant minor can ever be held responsible for the nations crimes. But the principle of collective guilt was an important foundation on which some justice could be achieved. For that reason I support the concept. One of the principles of the Nuremberg Charter (the right to a fair trial, which carries with it the presumption of innocence before conviction) ensures that in theory at least no child of that age would ever be found individually culpable. Say, for some insane reason a child was hauled before the tribunal the trial would not have lasted 5 minutes, because the foundation principles could not be met.

I have no sympathy for what happened doesnt mean i have no emotions (my feelings of no sympathy are personal, I keep them to myself, as I do my other my personal feelings of anger (at least thats what I try to do) at nations having to fight yet another war against a nation so self absorbed it failed to see the great crimes it was committing). I feel great sorrow for what happened, and I know that terrible crimes were done to many children of many nations. But the reason for this happening is directly linked to the decisions made by those childrens guardians to support a regime bent on aggressive war. That needed to be dealt with as a priority at the end of the war, and to a limited extent it was. Those Russians that did what they did was heinous, outside the law, and unfortunately untouchable. So too were many of the nazi criminals, but the difference was their country lost and was found guilty of waging aggressive war and hence committed a war crime. for the law as it existed in 1945 (it has changed since then) the Russians, whilst guilty of common rape and murder, were not guilty of a war crime. Thats not me trying to justify their actions, thats me applying the legal test that needed to be applied in 1945. They were there in Berlin because of what hitler decided to do, and Hitler was there because he was genuinely supported by the German nation.

Soft mushy feelings of sorrow and sympathy are nice luxuries to comfort oneself, or perhaps someone you know , but understanding the reasons and making sure they never happen again are, in my opinion, more important because they can be applied to both people you know and people you dont know, and, people you like and people you dont like. Your sympathy to someone you dont know is nice to hear but doesnt achieve much else and doesnt help them, and certainly leaves the issue of even partial justice unanswered. My opinion is that the conduct of the nuremberg trials, and the application of the principles that underpinned them whilst hard to accept as a person with german sympathies, are a better response to achieve tangibly improved peace conditions after the war.

Wow...

So lets get this straight then. The 3 year old twin kids of a drunk driver who killed someone are guilty because of association as well. But it is only a "diminished responsibility".

That is your logic...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Having sympathy, or sorrow, or regret are important personal traits. Without it we are quite mindless. It doesnt make us better people if we are all sympathy and no action. And certainly the allies did not have a greater monopoly on sympathy (or any other superior human quality) compared to the Germans. Germans as individuals or even as groups showed great sympathy, kindness charity and mercy. We are no better than they. In the context of 1945 there is only one real difference......the Germans caused it all by starting it. Some of them committed terrible crimes. Some of ours also did. Id like to think more of theirs did more bad things than our guys, but that is hardly a reason to say something was terribly wrong in germany at wars end. What was wrong was that as a nation they had started a conflagaration that cost millions of innocent lives, including many from their own nation, including their children. Therein lies the bedrock of the crime. Some of its people in the institution of that national crime then went on to commit terrible further indictable crimes which are called war crimes. Some of the nation guilty and standing in the dock did nothing and were free to continue their lives. Some, under Soviet control unfortunately were not so free though they had not really done anything wrong

NOT a single person here is saying that the Nazi's/Germans did not bring this on themselves. You keep tip toeing around the fact that it is okay that it was okay to commit crimes and atrocities against innocent people (yes Children are innocent whether you want to admit it or not with your false logic) simply because they are German.

Lets see, my mother was born right after the end of WW2. I guess because her parents were WW2 Germans, that makes them Nazi's and it also makes my mother a Nazi and she should have war guilt too right? War guilt for something she was not even alive. Lets extend that out to my wife as well who was born 38 years after the war ended.

God I am shaking may head.

Honestly this is my last response to this thread, or to any post you make from here on out in any thread. Otherwise this will get ugly again.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

If you said "They were not innocent" you may have an argument, it is statements like that which hangs the guilt on present day German children. It is now 70 years since the second world war started, dont drag that into the present day.

This bugs my wife so much...

I guess as a half German, I should feel guilty too. Hell when do we draw the line? Do I have to feel double guilty because the American side of me did terrible things to the Native Americas? I guess so, using his logic.

 

[pbehn]

This bugs my wife so much...

I guess as a half German, I should feel guilty too. Hell when do we draw the line? Do I have to feel double guilty because the American side of me did terrible things to the Native Americas? I guess so, using his logic.

I heard it from many working with Brits in Germany and frankly after a couple of years I stopped associating with expats. If you dont stop somewhere with this, you end up with the endless "whataboutery" that can keep the hate going for generations. One of my earliest political memories was the Northern Ireland troubles kicking off in 1969. It is still going on but that is hardly a surprise both sides can hark back to events 200 300 and up to 1200 years before. Roman Catholics and Protestants didnt exist then but hey, thats just a mere detail.

 

[stona]

You might as well blame the demise of the vole and other small rodents in Britain on the Italians since it was the Romans who supposedly introduced the domestic cat to these islands.

Steve

 

[pbehn]

You might as well blame the demise of the vole and other small rodents in Britain on the Italians since it was the Romans who supposedly introduced the domestic cat to these islands.

Exactly what I was saying, what did the Romans do for us?

I have been personally held responsible for the invasion of Ireland in 1148, the potato famine, poor medical treatment of the Scots at Culloden, Amritsar, sinking the French fleet at Oran and the A bomb on Hiroshima. It can be fun working abroad.