Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[aenri]

Maybe my english is not good enough, but I feel there is a important distinction between judging someone and feeling ashamed. Judging someone doesn't imply any personal feelings, or if the judged person is wrong or right. Ashamed of is more of a personal feeling of wrongful acts done by the person you are ashamed of.

Even if they were your ancestors, it shouldn't matter for you what have they done. If my grandfather had been an officer of SS, should I be ashamed or proud of him? Should I look at some guy with scorn, because I know his father was an agent of KGB?

These are your primary examples of things to not feel shame for. Would you consider it a different scenario to feel ashamed of the actions of a past SS/KGB family member as opposed to judging them for their participation? Do they need to be unrelated to you to be allowed to feel ashamed of/judge their actions? I need explanation on the proper way to atone for the past atrocities.

Yes, as I said, for me judging them isn't the same as being ashamed of them. I really don't see how can I be ashamed of them, or feel guilty for that. Judging is another matter. I can form an opinion about them and declare if they were moral people or not. And even if they weren't moral people by my standards I should not feel guilty for their works. That's just shifting their guilt onto their descendants. The only people that should be feeling guilty are those who did wrong in the past.

The proper way to atone for atrocities is to put the people that comitted them on trial. Re: Nűremburg and such. Justice demands it. But that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

I need explanation on the proper way to atone for the past atrocities.

I'm not sure there is a "proper" way. I think there is a difference between personal guilt and historic responsability. I don't feel personal guilt over Nazi crimes, since I had no chance whatsoever to influence what happened before my parents were born. I do think however that as a German I have a historic responsability to keep the memory of these crimes alive and to be aware of what happened how, and why, so that nobody can forget, deny or whitewash what happened. This is more or less institutionalized here, not necessarily as collective guilt, but as a special responsability.

On an individual level this is much more complicated. The generations younger than me have much less of a personal connection to the past than those who still knew people alive during Nazi rule. Also it is not like most people know or can know exactly what their individual ancestors did during that time, some did horrible things, some did good things, some did pretty much nothing. I try to judge my family members by what I know about them, which of course may not be the full picture.

You know, I hope that maybe in 50 years Germans wouldn't feel guilty or responsible for things Nazis did (the same thing with Japanese and no one cares about Italians ). Nazis will be long dead by that time and that's for the best.

Let history take them to books.

I don't dislike Mongols because Genghis Khan comitted genocide on great scale 800 years ago, and Mongols aren't really ashamed of him afaik. [joke]By this example I think Adolf will be seen as a great conqueror in German history 500-600 years later . [/joke]

[Owlbread]

The whole argument about which country is/has been the most oppressive out of all is based on a very important underlying argument - which nation/country/civilization has the right to criticize other countries

At this point, United States, Great Britain, France, Germany and other countries of the Western world think that they are the most righteous countries in the world and that they are morally and ideologically superior to the rest of the world. No one did grant the Western world the title of paragon of virtue and the right to enforce their own political ideologies and morals around the world. Such a claim is backed solely by the military and economic power of Western countries. As the saying goes, "Might makes right".

You are making a mistake here. I am not the UK. I am not "the West". I am not a government spokesman. I'm just a person like you, and we always have the right to criticise countries of wrongdoings.

In my opinion, however, if Russia or other country had a similarly powerful economy and military force, they would definitely proclaim themselves the most righteous countries in the world and then haughtily asserted about how virtuous they are, how awful is the life in Britain or America and how all the British or American rulers that opposed them in the past or oppose them at the moment are the scum of the earth... all the while covering up their own skeletons in their closets.

And Russia did exactly that for almost a century during the Soviet period.

[WarRoot]

At this point, United States, Great Britain, France, Germany and other countries of the Western world think that they are the most righteous countries in the world and that they are morally and ideologically superior to the rest of the world. No one did grant the Western world the title of paragon of virtue and the right to enforce their own political ideologies and morals around the world. Such a claim is backed solely by the military and economic power of Western countries. As the saying goes, "Might makes right".

In my opinion, however, if Russia or other country had a similarly powerful economy and military force, they would definitely proclaim themselves the most righteous countries in the world and then haughtily asserted about how virtuous they are, how awful is the life in Britain or America and how all the British or American rulers that opposed them in the past or oppose them at the moment are the scum of the earth... all the while covering up their own skeletons in their closets.

The Russian economy and military seems to be getting stronger then:
Article about Russian human rights report on EU

[Frumple]

The whole argument about which country is/has been the most oppressive out of all is based on a very important underlying argument - which nation/country/civilization has the right to criticize other countries?

It isn't. I'm not even sure the point was to point out which had been the "most oppressive". Even if everyone involved is equally oppressive, that does not magically make anyone involved not oppressive. It just makes them all equally assholes. Even if there is a hierarchy of oppression, that does not exempt whoever's at the bottom from having been an oppressive jackass (at least at some point in the past) just because they were the least oppressive of jackasses.

As for that western superiority nonsense... the only people, western or otherwise, that proclaim western superiority are idiots or pushing some kind of agenda. Much of the actual population is well bloody aware of how terrible their leaders are and that their country has done or is doing terrible things (if not necessarily the extent.). Those that aren't are either blatantly ignorant (especially in this day and age, at least in the areas relatively open internet is a thing), willfully in denial, or actively obfuscating. Very few nations, if any, are free from atrocity. Current or otherwise.

As for who has the right to criticize wrong action -- the answer to that is anyone. Because it's wrong action. Being a person that has also committed wrong action does not mean you lose the right to criticize the wrong actions of others. It just makes you either a hypocrite or repentant. Being fair, folks operating at the level of geopolitics are usually the former. It is true that there's definitely a certain sort of audacity involved with someone like Putin (as an example) calling people out (because it's pretty likely they're going to turn around and do the same thing), but if he's calling out other people with good reason, well... that wouldn't change the facts of the issue he's criticizing. At most, it'd just mean he's trying to milk the issue for publicity of some sort, which is a thing entirely separate from whatever issue is being criticized.

[XXSockXX]

You know, I hope that maybe in 50 years Germans wouldn't feel guilty or responsible for things Nazis did (the same thing with Japanese and no one cares about Italians ). Nazis will be long dead by that time and that's for the best.

Let history take them to books.

That's not what I meant. It's not about feeling guilt or shame, it's about retaining awareness of history. You should not try to forget and pretend it never happened, you should be aware of it, reflect about it and learn for the future. Most countries would benefit from doing that more.

The proper way to atone for atrocities is to put the people that comitted them on trial. Re: Nűremburg and such. Justice demands it. But that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Trials are not necessarily enough. Nüremberg especially was pretty flawed, because many got away while others were maybe sentenced too harshly. Also it was victor's justice, and it would have been seen that way (like similar trials are seen in Ex-Yugoslavia today) had there not been a much more wide-reaching de-indoctrination effort accompanying it.

[Guardian G.I.]

You are making a mistake here. I am not the UK. I am not "the West". I am not a government spokesman. I'm just a person like you, and we always have the right to criticise countries of wrongdoings.

My post wasn't directed against you.

The Russian economy and military seems to be getting stronger then:
Article about Russian human rights report on EU

That Russian human rights report isn't backed by any real power. Russia can't call for international sanctions or invade someone based on these allegations, while Western countries can do the same to Russia or other countries they find guilty of violating human rights.
On an unrelated note, notice how Foreign Policy's article dismisses Russian allegations of human rights violations in the EU as completely false and presents Western allegations of human rights violations in Russia as proven and undeniable. That's a fine example of propaganda.

[aenri]

That's not what I meant. It's not about feeling guilt or shame, it's about retaining awareness of history. You should not try to forget and pretend it never happened, you should be aware of it, reflect about it and learn for the future. Most countries would benefit from doing that more.

Then I misunderstood, i'm sorry. I agree completely with you on this, there goes the famous quote - those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it.

Trials are not necessarily enough. Nüremberg especially was pretty flawed, because many got away while others were maybe sentenced too harshly. Also it was victor's justice, and it would have been seen that way (like similar trials are seen in Ex-Yugoslavia today) had there not been a much more wide-reaching de-indoctrination effort accompanying it.

The point of the trials was that Nazism and war crimes were identified and showed to people, with some perpetrators punished for it. It could be seen as victor's justice and there's bound to be resentment about it, but the main point still stands.
Also there were many other trials that continued into 50's, so that also helped with "atonement for war crimes".
But wasn't the whole denazification deemed not effective and stopped with people pardoned if they were convicted? As in that there would be no Germans left for administering Germany who weren't part of NSDAP or affliated structures, so they needed to loosen up the criteria for it.

[10ebbor10]

That Russian human rights report isn't backed by any real power. Russia can't call for international sanctions or invade someone based on these allegations, while Western countries can do the same to Russia or other countries they find guilty of violating human rights.
On an unrelated note, notice how Foreign Policy's article dismisses Russian allegations of human rights violations in the EU as completely false and presents Western allegations of human rights violations in Russia as proven and undeniable. That's a fine example of propaganda.

While all of this is true (though the Nazi threat might be a tad exaggerated) the Russians really should not be the ones pointing fingers.

Or is that not the article you're referring too.

Point is, ethics are a completely cultural thing.

[aenri]

While all of this is true (though the Nazi threat might be a tad exaggerated) the Russians really should not be the ones pointing fingers.

Or is that not the article you're referring too.

Point is, ethics are a completely cultural thing.

The whole argument about which country is/has been the most oppressive out of all is based on a very important underlying argument - which nation/country/civilization has the right to criticize other countries?

Is this the full circle?

[XXSockXX]

That Russian human rights report isn't backed by any real power. Russia can't call for international sanctions or invade someone based on these allegations, while Western countries can do the same to Russia or other countries they find guilty of violating human rights.
On an unrelated note, notice how Foreign Policy's article dismisses Russian allegations of human rights violations in the EU as completely false and presents Western allegations of human rights violations in Russia as proven and undeniable. That's a fine example of propaganda.

The article merely points out how hypocritical it is for example to accuse Germany of homophobia when Russia has made homosexuality basically illegal. It's not saying there are no human rights violations in the EU, just that there are more and worse ones in Russia.

Also of course could Russia implement sanctions against the EU if it wanted, we get most of our gas from there. Invasion is something else, but I highly doubt the West is really militarily capable of invading Russia, or vice versa.

The point of the trials was that Nazism and war crimes were identified and showed to people, with some perpetrators punished for it. It could be seen as victor's justice and there's bound to be resentment about it, but the main point still stands.
Also there were many other trials that continued into 50's, so that also helped with "atonement for war crimes".
But wasn't the whole denazification deemed not effective and stopped with people pardoned if they were convicted? As in that there would be no Germans left for administering Germany who weren't part of NSDAP or affliated structures, so they needed to loosen up the criteria for it.

Well, Nüremberg had to be victor's justice, in part because it was German law that was immoral too. You can't - broadly speaking - try someone for murder if the law doesn't prohibit it or even encourages it. There is no resentment over it, it just becomes more clear over time how many escaped justice. There are some questionable results, they basically made Rudolf Hess a martyr for Neo-Nazis to this day, but these are really minor problems.
There were indeed plenty of people who were pardoned and continued working in administration, that wouldn't have been practical otherwise. Denazification also includes education, that did continue and - in a way - is still ongoing. It's this education that is important, with trials alone, people tend to forget or might start downplaying or justifying events.

Then I misunderstood, i'm sorry. I agree completely with you on this, there goes the famous quote - those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it.

No problem, that is indeed what I meant. There is no reason to feel shame or guilt about the past, but there is a responsability for the present and future.

[Helgoland]

That Russian human rights report isn't backed by any real power. Russia can't call for international sanctions or invade someone based on these allegations, while Western countries can do the same to Russia or other countries they find guilty of violating human rights.

Sure it can! The West just won't give a shit and/or arm the rebels in the country that is being invaded, like in Afghanistan. Pretty much the way it runs when America does it, just flipped.

[Dutchling]

Relevant:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Helgoland]

Why is Poland wearing a stereotypical Chinese hat?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

He's been masquerading as Indonesia's wife for a bit too long.

[Dutchling]

Why is Poland wearing a stereotypical Chinese hat?

It's Indonesia.