berman@ihlpg.UUCP (Andy Berman) (04/19/85)
For the record, here is the explanation given by
the President of the United States, as to why he
intends to visit the cemetery of 47 members of the
Nazi SS and 2000 other Nazi soldiers:
"I think there is nothing wrong with visiting
that cemetery where those young men are victims
of Nazism also, even though they were fighting
in the German uniform. They were victims just as surely
as the victims in the concentration camps."
-President Reagan, NYTimes 4/19/85
-------------------------------------------------
If a Contra in Nicaragua can be a "freedom fighter",
then why can't the Nazis be "victims"? Welcome to the
logic of the President of the United States!
Andy Bermancher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov) (04/19/85)
> > "I think there is nothing wrong with visiting > that cemetery where those young men are victims > of Nazism also, even though they were fighting > in the German uniform. They were victims just as surely > as the victims in the concentration camps." > -President Reagan, NYTimes 4/19/85 > ------------------------------------------------- > If a Contra in Nicaragua can be a "freedom fighter", > then why can't the Nazis be "victims"? Welcome to the > logic of the President of the United States! > Andy Berman I'll buy Reagan's reasoning, but would not comment on merits of his trip schedule. When at age 16 you are drafted by the Nazi Germany army and sent to be shredded - you are in sad shape. Germans who were 16 in 1944 have been submitted to overwhelming Nazi propaganda since age of 5. Even if you are intelligent enough at 16 to suspect, are you determined enough to oppose the regime? Of, course, the above applies to rather limited number of people. Remark about Nicaragua is instance of pure question-begging. Mike Cherepov
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (04/20/85)
Just as an aside, Andy, Bitberg (sp?) Cemetary contains much more than 2047 WWII German war dead. The cemetary goes back before Napoleans time. War dead from all of Germany's wars are intered there. It is more like a National Cemetary along the lines of our Arlington. Anyway, maybe Reagan will whip it out and pee on the SS graves, ya never know.
mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (04/23/85)
Whether the Nazi recruits were victims or not isn't really the issue. One could argue that the Vichy regime in France was a victim of the Nazis, but the French don't honor it. They honor the minority that were brave enough to oppose the fascists. The right move is to honor the Nazi resistance as the best of Germans, not the "good Germans" who asked no questions -- or worse, as many at Bitburg are, the real butchers who savored the opportunity. Mike Kelly
robg@mmintl.UUCP (Robert Goldman) (04/24/85)
About Reagan's dumb comments, Mike Cherepov writes:
When at age 16 you are drafted by the Nazi Germany army
and sent to be shredded - you are in sad shape.
Germans who were 16 in 1944 have been submitted to
overwhelming Nazi propaganda since age of 5.
Even if you are intelligent enough at 16 to suspect,
are you determined enough to oppose the regime?
Yes, BUT this does not apply to the SS men buried in this cemetary. Sorry,
Mike, but there just isn`t a good way to defend this Reagan boo-boo.
Robert Goldman
MultiMate Int'l.
Of course, this opinion does not necessarily reflect the opinions of my
Masters. . .david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (04/24/85)
> > > > "I think there is nothing wrong with visiting > > that cemetery where those young men are victims > > of Nazism also, even though they were fighting > > in the German uniform. They were victims just as surely > > as the victims in the concentration camps." > > -President Reagan, NYTimes 4/19/85 > I'll buy Reagan's reasoning, but would not comment > on merits of his trip schedule. > When at age 16 you are drafted by the Nazi Germany army > and sent to be shredded - you are in sad shape. > Germans who were 16 in 1944 have been submitted to > overwhelming Nazi propaganda since age of 5. > Even if you are intelligent enough at 16 to suspect, > are you determined enough to oppose the regime? > > Of, course, the above applies to rather limited number of > people. > > Mike Cherepov Yes, conscripts can be considered victims, much as someone who dies as the result of a mugging or a disease is a victim. However, there is a difference in levels of victimization. What is objectionable is that Reagan believes someone who dies in a war serving his country is as much as victim as the object of genocide. It is the equating of a war with genocide to which I strenuously object, for if war is inevitable (and even sometimes justified), must not someone who believes genocide to be morally equivalent also accept the latter as inevitable? Also, their is a distinction worth making between the state of mind of a teenager drafted into the Wehrmacht and a volunteer "serving" in the SS. By visiting Bitburg, Reagan fails to make that distinction. Thus he compounds the insult by not only equating lesser victims with greater victims, but by also treating the victimizers as victims, too. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (04/24/85)
> > For the record, here is the explanation given by > the President of the United States, as to why he > intends to visit the cemetery of 47 members of the > Nazi SS and 2000 other Nazi soldiers: > > "I think there is nothing wrong with visiting > that cemetery where those young men are victims > of Nazism also, even though they were fighting > in the German uniform. They were victims just as surely > as the victims in the concentration camps." > -President Reagan, NYTimes 4/19/85 > ------------------------------------------------- > > If a Contra in Nicaragua can be a "freedom fighter", > then why can't the Nazis be "victims"? Welcome to the > logic of the President of the United States! > Andy Berman Not all Germans were Nazis (although a lot more were than will now admit it!). Many German soldiers were drafted; many were mislead to believe they were doing something noble. They gave their lives to defend Nazism; that makes them "victims" to me. By the way, can we all stop using that misleading abbreviation "Nazi"? It's short for "National Socialist" in German, and a lot of modern day socialists would like for people to forget what Hitler's economic policies were all about, in the same way that they would like people to forget that "fascism" is Italian for "collectivism". As much as you may like to pretend differently, Hitler and Mussolini's movements were outgrowths of socialism. They were called "right wing" because the conservatives throughout Europe have tended towards variations of socialism and collectivism. "Right wing" in the American tradition has NOTHING to do with the right wing traditions of Europe.
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (04/25/85)
-- > By the way, can we all stop using that misleading abbreviation > "Nazi"? It's short for "National Socialist" in German, and a > lot of modern day socialists would like for people to forget what > Hitler's economic policies were all about... Don't reactionaries ever tire of this drivel? Capitalism prospered under Hitler because capitalists, fearful of a revolution, put him in power. Hitler's economic policies were "business as usual" for the barons of German industry--some of whom are still doing quite well. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 25 Apr 85 [6 Floreal An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (04/25/85)
Shouldn't this subject be more appropriately titled:
Ronald Reagan - The shame of America ???
wmyers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (04/26/85)
> >By the way, can we all stop using that misleading abbreviation "Nazi"? It's >short for "National Socialist" in German, and a lot of modern day socialists >would like for people to forget what Hitler's economic policies were all about, >in the same way that they would like people to forget that "fascism" is >Italian for "collectivism". As much as you may like to pretend differently, >Hitler and Mussolini's movements were outgrowths of socialism. They were >called "right wing" because the conservatives throughout Europe have tended >towards variations of socialism and collectivism. "Right wing" in the American >tradition has NOTHING to do with the right wing traditions of Europe. Ah, the old chesnut about how socialist the National Socialists were. The part of the party who really took the economic propaganda of the party seriously were purged shortly after Hitler had consolidated power. Did large capitalists disappear under Hitler? No. Why don't you take the time to read Shirer's *The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich*, Karl Dietrich Bracher's work on National Socialism, and maybe David Abraham's book on Weimar Germany? -- Jeff Myers The views above may or may not University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.ARPA UUCP: ..!{ucbvax,allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers "I am not a Nazi." -- Richard Nixon :-(
ccrdave@ucdavis.UUCP (Lord Kahless) (04/28/85)
> > About Reagan's dumb comments, Mike Cherepov writes: > > When at age 16 you are drafted by the Nazi Germany army > and sent to be shredded - you are in sad shape. > Germans who were 16 in 1944 have been submitted to > overwhelming Nazi propaganda since age of 5. > Even if you are intelligent enough at 16 to suspect, > are you determined enough to oppose the regime? > > Yes, BUT this does not apply to the SS men buried in this cemetary. Sorry, > Mike, but there just isn`t a good way to defend this Reagan boo-boo. > Much as I think Reagen is a doik for what he's doing, the above comments are WRONG. You must remember that the SS was an elite corps of the army. We all think of the SS as the black uniformed SS Death Head Corps. They were the bastards in the camps, may they roast forever. In addition to the Deaths Head, there were the Waffen SS. They were just like regular army troops, except they were sort of "elite" and recieved better weapons/ food, etc. They wore green uniforms with black collars. These guys were NOT the Death Head butcherers. (in other words they shot Jews in villages like regular army troops, rather than gassing them.) They were young kids who had been raised under Hitler, who had "made the grade" of the SS rather than been sent to the regular army along with their less able kin. These were the guys Reagen will lay the wreath over. There also were a blue uniformed bunch that were fatso Goering's personal anti-aircraft batallion, and some more, if memory serves me correctly. You should consult Howard K. Smith's "Last Train From Berlin" for details. Dave van De Kerk
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (04/29/85)
> Whether the Nazi recruits were victims or not isn't really > the issue. One could argue that the Vichy regime in France > was a victim of the Nazis, but the French don't honor it. > They honor the minority that were brave enough to oppose the > fascists. The right move is to honor the Nazi resistance as > the best of Germans, not the "good Germans" who asked no > questions -- or worse, as many at Bitburg are, the real butchers > who savored the opportunity. > > Mike Kelly At the risk of getting the JDL after me, let me say that you do yourself, and many others, a dishonor by implying that the majority of the German people condoned Hitler's actions by serving their country in time of war. It is very easy for people in our free society to assume that anyone, anywhere can speak out against their government and not face retribution. Let me point out to you that this has very rarely been the case in most of the world. Should we let the world forget what happened? No. Should we in anyway honor the madmen that made it possible? Never! But isn't about time we stopped condeming a whole generation of people because they fought for their country when its existence was being threatened? No? Tell me that again when you see the tanks in the street. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/01/85)
> > > >By the way, can we all stop using that misleading abbreviation "Nazi"? It's > >short for "National Socialist" in German, and a lot of modern day socialists > >would like for people to forget what Hitler's economic policies were all about, > >in the same way that they would like people to forget that "fascism" is > >Italian for "collectivism". As much as you may like to pretend differently, > >Hitler and Mussolini's movements were outgrowths of socialism. They were > >called "right wing" because the conservatives throughout Europe have tended > >towards variations of socialism and collectivism. "Right wing" in the American > >tradition has NOTHING to do with the right wing traditions of Europe. > > Ah, the old chesnut about how socialist the National Socialists were. The > part of the party who really took the economic propaganda of the party > seriously were purged shortly after Hitler had consolidated power. Did > large capitalists disappear under Hitler? No. > > Why don't you take the time to read Shirer's *The Rise and Fall of the > Third Reich*, Karl Dietrich Bracher's work on National Socialism, and > maybe David Abraham's book on Weimar Germany? > > -- > Jeff Myers The views above may or may not > University of Wisconsin-Madison reflect the views of any other > Madison Academic Computing Center person or group at UW-Madison. > ARPA: uwmacc!myers@wisc-rsch.ARPA > UUCP: ..!{ucbvax,allegra,heurikon,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!myers > > "I am not a Nazi." -- Richard Nixon :-( I have read Shirer's book; you are correct that the ideological socialists were purged shortly after Hitler came to power. Nonetheless, Hitler's economic policies have a lot more in common with socialism than laissez faire economics, especially in two respects: 1) The supremacy of the State over the individual. 2) The idea that the State was going to work for the common good. It didn't happen. It never has. Power corrupts even people who mean well. Finally, let me recommend you read *Nazis and Labor* (the author escapes me at the moment). Hitler's National Socialism appealed to much the same constituency as the German Communist Party, and for very similar reasons. .
robg@mmintl.UUCP (Robert Goldman) (05/01/85)
Robert Zarcone writes:
Should we let the world forget what happened? No. Should we in
anyway honor the madmen that made it possible? Never! But isn't
about time we stopped condeming a whole generation of people because
they fought for their country when its existence was being threatened?
No? Tell me that again when you see the tanks in the street.
It seems to me that visiting Bitburg falls into the `honor the
madmen', rather than the `stop condemning' category.
Robert Goldman
MultiMate Internationaldavid@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (05/01/85)
> At the risk of getting the JDL after me, let me say that you do > yourself, and many others, a dishonor by implying that the majority > of the German people condoned Hitler's actions by serving their > country in time of war.... One ought to reflect upon Nazi strength in the last Reichstag before one erroneously assumes that a majority of adult Germans did not apporove of the Nazis' anti-Semitic program. David Rubin
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (05/02/85)
> > At the risk of getting the JDL after me, let me say that you do > > yourself, and many others, a dishonor by implying that the majority > > of the German people condoned Hitler's actions by serving their > > country in time of war.... > > One ought to reflect upon Nazi strength in the last Reichstag before > one erroneously assumes that a majority of adult Germans did not > apporove of the Nazis' anti-Semitic program. > > David Rubin I take it, then, that the majority of US citizens approve of proxy war on Nicaragua because Reagan was elected President. Remember, campers, no-one is elected on single issues. jeff m
david@uwvax.UUCP (David Parter) (05/03/85)
> > One ought to reflect upon Nazi strength in the last Reichstag before > > one erroneously assumes that a majority of adult Germans did not > > apporove of the Nazis' anti-Semitic program. > > > > David Rubin > > I take it, then, that the majority of US citizens approve of proxy war > on Nicaragua because Reagan was elected President. Remember, campers, > no-one is elected on single issues. > > jeff m [jeff, i'm sure you will agree with me on this one] but, those who remain silent on an issue are accepting the decisions of their leaders. The majority of the German people remained silent, and, unfortunatly, the majority of the US people have remained silent about our actions in Latin America. If Reagan really wanted to recognize the lessons of WWII, he would, as others have suggested, honor the German resistance. This is a different matter from remembering the holocaust, which he should also do. david parter UWisc Systems Lab arpa: david@wisc-rsch.arpa UUCP: { ihnp4 seismo harvard bellcore }!uwvax!david
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (05/07/85)
> > > At the risk of getting the JDL after me, let me say that you do > > > yourself, and many others, a dishonor by implying that the majority > > > of the German people condoned Hitler's actions by serving their > > > country in time of war.... > > > > One ought to reflect upon Nazi strength in the last Reichstag before > > one erroneously assumes that a majority of adult Germans did not > > apporove of the Nazis' anti-Semitic program. > > > > David Rubin > > I take it, then, that the majority of US citizens approve of proxy war > on Nicaragua because Reagan was elected President. Remember, campers, > no-one is elected on single issues. > > jeff m Reagan soft-pedalled and evaded discussion of his plans for Nicaragua, and thus the last election cannot be intrepeted as a referendum on that issue. Nicaragua was, at most, a MARGINAL issue. The Nazis, on the other hand, made anti-Semitism a CENTRAL theme of all their campaigns, and even the densest German voter could reasonably expect that Nazi street violence against Jews would become official government policy upon there rise to power. For most Americans in 1984, a Republican ballot was cast DESPITE concern for POTENTIAL events in Central America; for most Germans in the early '30s, a Nazi ballot was cast at least partially because of APPROVAL of ACTUAL Nazi actions against Jews. We can accurately state that the 1984 election result reflected American approval of Reagan economic policy (the CENTRAL issue); similarly, we can truthfully state that the Reichstag elections reflected German approval of anti-Semitism and the destruction of the Weimar Republic (CENTRAL issues then). Americans ignored Nicaragua; Germans of the '30s paid much attention, indeed, to the "Jewish Question". And remember campers, elections often DO swing on single issues, even in the stablest of democracies. The truism which holds otherwise is comforting, but untrue. And if it can be untrue in a country as diverse as this one is, it is even less likely to hold for the more homogenous, less tolerant, and less democratic electorates of interwar Europe. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (05/14/85)
>One ought to reflect upon Nazi strength in the last Reichstag before >one erroneously assumes that a majority of adult Germans did not >apporove of the Nazis' anti-Semitic program. > > David Rubin I think "erroneously" should be removed from that. The Nazis never had a majority in the Reichstag, and their numbers in the last Reichstag were substantially decreased from those at the previous election. It was the Conservatives (under a variety of names) who asked Hindenberg to appoint Hitler as Chancellor after von Papen failed. They thought they could control him rather than he them. As for WHY people voted Nazi, it is hard to say, public opinion polls not being as well developed then as now; but it is highly likely that Hitler was heard as a voice of economic hope rather than as a genocidal maniac. Sure, anti-semitism was deep in the Nazi program, but probably France, Poland, and England were more anti-semitic than Germany in (say) 1925. Germany had a Jewish population that was large and well-integrated (as compared to the rest of Western Europe). But Germany was in a terrible economic (and political) state, and when people under those conditions hear the voice of certainty, they tend to believe at least part of what it says. My guess is that a very small proportion of the German voters approved of the anti-Semitic programs of the Nazis, at least until they were swayed (as we all are) by the unremitting propaganda of the Nazi government. Of course, I can't prove it. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (05/20/85)
[..........] >My guess is that a very small proportion of the German voters approved >of the anti-Semitic programs of the Nazis, at least until they were >swayed (as we all are) by the unremitting propaganda of the Nazi government. >Of course, I can't prove it. >-- > >Martin Taylor Ok, but how do you suggest we might detect future such programs of unremitting propaganda, and/or help more people to recognize such dangerous situations so they do not become swayed by some group of vigorous P-R men? I think that it is by requiring people to think, to make decisions for themselves, and not to accept the soothing words of some bozo in a business suit who claims to know all the answers. I've heard many times in christian groups that God gave us 'free-will' (I'd like to know any Biblical reference to this by the way if anyone knows any offhand) and we have to make our own choice. How can anyone make their own choice if they're being bombarded with propaganda by some religious zealot? Religious brainwashing exists in this country whether you want to believe it or not. Many of their techniques are similar to those utilized in Germany against the Jews (among other things) in the 30's. One of the best (because it is the most publicized) examples in this country is the Moonies. The most powerful technique seems to be ISOLATION. If you can control ALL of a persons inputs, you are quite a long ways toward being in complete control of the person. Book burning and book banning are important contributions to this technique of isolation. If we learn anything from the Holocaust it must be that we must be constantly aware of some of the insidious techniques that can be used to manipulate people. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd