Poland rejects reparations call

[Talon]

Poland rejects reparations call

The Polish government has said it will not seek World War II reparations from Germany, rejecting parliament's calls to reopen the controversial issue.

"The question of claims in Polish-German relations is once and for all closed," Polish Prime Minister Marek Belka said after a cabinet meeting.

Last week, Polish MPs voted for a resolution calling on Germany to pay for war damages.

Some six million Poles died after Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939.

Poland's communist authorities gave up all reparation claims in 1953.

But the issue has recently threatened to undermine the generally good ties between the European Union's biggest new member and its largest trading partner, Germany, the BBC's Adam Easton in Warsaw reports.

Thorny issue

The non-binding resolution in the Polish parliament - the Sejm - was commonly seen as a response to claims from a small group of Germans for ancestral property lost when Poland's borders shifted westwards at the end of the war.

An estimated 2.5 million Germans were forced to leave their homes at the time.

The resolution caused outrage in Germany.

One of the German groups, the Preussische Treuhand (the Prussian Claim Society), has said it will take cases to the Polish and European courts.

The German government had earlier vowed not to back the German group's claims on Poland.

However, a ruling in June by the European Court of Human Rights that Poland must compensate German citizens for lost property opened the doors for such claims.

Most Poles hugely resent such claims, and Prime Minister Belka said after the cabinet meeting such demands were "utterly inconceivable".

After also rejecting the Sejm resolution, Mr Belka said his government would try to put a figure on Poland's wartime losses.

Polish Foreign Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz said such a move would serve as a reminder to "all those who forgot what World War II was, what its effects and consequences were".

For its size, Poland suffered far more damage and casualties than any other country, our correspondent says.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder - who has condemned the German claims - said earlier on Tuesday the Sejm resolution "must be rejected".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3657144.stm

I agree with the authorities.

Germany lost Prussia to Poland, Poland lost 6 million people to Germany. Furthermore, Germany lost 9 million people under Hitler. I think that makes up for it. After 65 years central/eastern Europe should stop squabbling (which started the wars in the first place) and move on.

[Homer]

I agree with you Talon, it was a long time ago, and it's time to move on

[DC09]

I'm sick of all this reparation crap.

[Fluffybunny]

Every few years in the US we get folks calling for reparations for slaves.

I'm all for it...I think every slave should be compensated for what happened to them...

Oh wait, they've all been dead for over a century.

Nevermind.

[Stellar]

Every few years in the US we get folks calling for reparations for slaves.

I'm all for it...I think every slave should be compensated for what happened to them...

Oh wait, they've all been dead for over a century.

Nevermind.

266877[/snapback]

Exactly. That and the native people too. Sheesh.

[AztecInca]

What happened is in the past and although we should never forget it and always learn from it, some things we just have to move on and get on with our lives.

[Talon]

Every few years in the US we get folks calling for reparations for slaves.

I'm all for it...I think every slave should be compensated for what happened to them...

Oh wait, they've all been dead for over a century.

Nevermind.

Yeah, stupid idea, just people trying to make money out of their ancestors suffering.

Another thing, I'm not condoning slavery, but if they're ancestors hadn't been taken as slaves, they could very well be in the Sudan or someplace at the mo (assuming the change in timeline didn't muck up the family tree )

[Talon]

WWII row clouds Berlin talks

Poland's Prime Minister Marek Belka visits Berlin on Monday for talks with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

The meeting will be overshadowed by the very public spat between the two neighbouring countries over World War II compensation.

Poland's parliament earlier this month passed a resolution, saying Warsaw had not received adequate compensation for the destruction caused by Germany.

However, Mr Belka has subsequently said the issue was closed once and for all.

Emotive issue

Even though the events are now 60 years old, the war has recently become a major thorn in the side of Polish-German relations.

Claims by a small group of Germans for ancestral property, lost when Poland's borders shifted westwards after the war, have caused huge resentment in Poland.

One of the groups - the Prussian Claims Society - has said it will take cases to both Polish and European courts.

That prompted the Polish parliament to pass a tough-worded non-binding resolution calling such claims groundless and urging the government to take up the matter with Berlin.

For most Poles, the issue of moral responsibility is clear.

For its size, Poland suffered far more damage and casualties at the hands of the Germans than any other country. Six million Poles - half of them Jews - were killed in the conflict.

Mr Belka has said he will seek a joint position with Germany during his brief one-day visit.

At the moment, neither government is willing to take sole responsibility for the claims. Until a lasting solution is found, this emotive issue is unlikely to go away.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3692444.stm

[Erikl]

Furthermore, Germany lost 9 million people under Hitler.

This has nothing to do with what Germany has done to others - they chose Hitler in democratic elections, no one forced him upon them. They also knew he would cancel democracy - because he promised it almost in every speech.

So the lost of 9 million Germans because of Hilter's regime is their fault alone.

On the other hand, Germany did lost all of eastern Germany to Poland (while Poland lost all of eastern Poland to Belarus and Ukraine), and that region was heavily industrialised, so one could say that this compensation was given to Poland (or actually taken by the Russians and given to the Poles).

I agree with you Talon, it was a long time ago, and it's time to move on

59 years is absolutely nothing, not only in human lifespan, but also in politics.

People, WW2 affected all of us daily up untill 1990 - the Cold War was one of results of WW2.

And there are still many people who live today, that for them that tragedy lives on eveyday.

There are also nations which lost too much in that war.

[Talon]

This has nothing to do with what Germany has done to others - they chose Hitler in democratic elections, no one forced him upon them. They also knew he would cancel democracy - because he promised it almost in every speech.

So the lost of 9 million Germans because of Hilter's regime is their fault alone.

Hitler was actually very vocal in claiming he would reverse Versailles through peaceful methods, they may have been kidding themselves, but the average German did not want a war.

Just because they were our enemy doesn't mean we should be dancing on their graves.

On the other hand, Germany did lost all of eastern Germany to Poland (while Poland lost all of eastern Poland to Belarus and Ukraine), and that region was heavily industrialised, so one could say that this compensation was given to Poland (or actually taken by the Russians and given to the Poles).

Or you could say Belarus and Ukraine lost territory to Poland in 1918 when Russia gave territory to Germany which was then given to Poland.

[Erikl]

Or you could say Belarus and Ukraine lost territory to Poland in 1918 when Russia gave territory to Germany which was then given to Poland.

The difference is, that there never were independent Ukraine or Belarus, virtually up untill the 1990s (if you do not include Ukraine and Belarus being republics in the USSR).

Poland, on the other hand, was destroyed by cooperation of three forces - Prussians, Russians and Austrians back in 1791.

Hitler was actually very vocal in claiming he would reverse Versailles through peaceful methods,

Hitler always spoke against the weimer republic's democracy, calling it weak and a constant reminder of Germany's lost in WW1.

Most of the Germans agreed with him, because democracy wasn't really popular in that Germany.

they may have been kidding themselves, but the average German did not want a war.

On the contrary - the average German wanted revange - against France, against Russia, against all the allies, because he was channeled to direct his anger of Germany's catastrophic economy to the "communist and jewish traitors who sold out Germany", and to retrive the lost lands of the "fatherland".

Just because they were our enemy doesn't mean we should be dancing on their graves.

Except for the social-democrats, homosexuals, and mental ills, I would not shed a tear on any of those 9 million Germans who died in WW2. They died believing in the monstraous ideology of Nazism, and for that I would always hate them. They were soldiers figthing to conquer the world and to kill my people.

They were, they are, and always will be my people's arch-enemies.

[Talon]

The difference is, that there never were independent Ukraine or Belarus, virtually up untill the 1990s (if you do not include Ukraine and Belarus being republics in the USSR).

Poland, on the other hand, was destroyed by cooperation of three forces - Prussians, Russians and Austrians back in 1791.

Actually the Ukraine was independent during the 9th century, it was just called Kievan Rus, and controlled much of western Europe. It was weakened by Mongol conquest and then subjugated by Poland during the 13th century. In 1654 it asked Russia to protect it against Poland, but the Russian took it as a invitation to absorb Kiev into Russia itself. Ukraine then declared independence during 1918, and there were years of civil war with the Red Army, but treated them like second class citizens like starving 5 million them in 1930s by taking there grain for Russia. It only finally gained independence will the fall of the USSR, Russia signing in 1997 a ten-year treaty which recognised Ukraine’s full territorial and political sovereignty.

I’m actually surprised, given that Israel was a state a few thousand years ago, got destroyed, then got reborn in the post-WW2 years, I thought you would have been more supportive of fellow people’s whose countries were removed from history for so long. But I guess not.

Hitler always spoke against the weimer republic's democracy, calling it weak and a constant reminder of Germany's lost in WW1.

Most of the Germans agreed with him, because democracy wasn't really popular in that Germany.

Oh I didn’t say he didn’t attack Democracy, I said he didn’t propose another war in public

On the contrary - the average German wanted revange - against France, against Russia, against all the allies, because he was channeled to direct his anger of Germany's catastrophic economy to the "communist and jewish traitors who sold out Germany", and to retrive the lost lands of the "fatherland".

Revenge doesn’t equal war. Remember I did a BA. with honours in History/Politics on the subject, I’m not speaking blindly, I read the books, including lots of sources talking about the depression people where in Berlin when war was declared both in 1939 and 1941. Now the military, the elites, and the extremists they wanted war.

Except for the social-democrats, homosexuals, and mental ills, I would not shed a tear on any of those 9 million Germans who died in WW2. They died believing in the monstraous ideology of Nazism, and for that I would always hate them. They were soldiers figthing to conquer the world and to kill my people.

They were, they are, and always will be my people's arch-enemies.

Sometimes it is required you rise above hatred to move on.

[Erikl]

Actually the Ukraine was independent during the 9th century, it was just called Kievan Rus, and controlled much of western Europe.

No, this is revisionist nonsence. Back in the 9th century, there was no Ukranian people. Heck - there were no Russians either back then.

Kiev was taken by the Varangian (Swedish Vikings) Rus in the 9th from the Khazar empire, a Jewish empire, which rulled most of Eastern Europe.

They were later (in the 10th century) converted to Orthodox Christianity by the Byzantines, and together they betrayed the Khazars (who saved the Byzantines from the hand of the muslims only a century earlier), mass killing them and converting many of them into Christianity.

Kiev is not even a slavic name, but a Khazar name.

It was weakened by Mongol conquest and then subjugated by Poland during the 13th century.

What really happened was that back then there were three main Rus city-states: Kiev, Muscovy (later Moscow), and Novograd.

They all were one and the same people - there were no Russians, no Ukranians, and no Belarussians.

When the Mongol arrived, the Lithuanians counter attacked them, conquering what is today's Western Ukrain and Polish Galicia, and Belarus.

The Lithuanians then, in the 14th century, created a Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was a Christian empire spread from the Blatic sea to the Black Sea.

Because the what would become Ukranians and Belarussians were seperated from the Russians (the Uk. and Bel. being part of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, while Moscuvy being part of the Mongol Empire) for about three centuries, the languages and people branched out to three different nations: Ruthenians, white Russians, and Russians.

The Ruthenians, or western Ukranians, later were incited by the Austo-Hungarian authorities to develop their own identity, to counter Russian influence in Austro-Hungarian minority groups.

The Poles, back in 1918, did the same to the white Russians - aka Belarussians.

In 1918, during the Civil War in the ex-territories of Tzarist Russia, there where three factions in Ukraine - the Reds (communists), Whites (Tzarists), and Greens (ultra-nationalist Ukranians who commited grave massacred in Ukraine's Jewish communities.

I know this because my grandmother, may she live long, which is 93 this year, was born in Ukraine, 1911, and in the midst of that civil war, she and her family moved to Kiev. When I did my ancestary paper a couple of year ago, it became a paper in history - as my grandmother told me on first hand the history of modern Russia, from the Tzar to this day.

I’m actually surprised, given that Israel was a state a few thousand years ago, got destroyed, then got reborn in the post-WW2 years, I thought you would have been more supportive of fellow people’s whose countries were removed from history for so long. huh.gif But I guess not.

Ukranian nationalism caused my people to lose 300,000-1,000,000 people in the 18th century, and many others in the 20th century.

Ukranian cossacks were a slavic version of the SS for many centuries, doing pogroms in Jewish comunities on daily basis.

And anyhow, as I shown, there was no Ukranian nation up untill recent centuries.

And on a more personall nore - you do know I am fond of ancient people restoring their independence. But as much you like, this simply isn't the case.

Oh I didn’t say he didn’t attack Democracy, I said he didn’t propose another war in public

But I originally wrote about Hitler official anti-Democratic ideology, known by all Germans who listened to even half a speech of he's before he got elected. And anyway, Hitler's entire ideology was made known to public years ago, in Mein Kampf. The Germans can say anything but "we didn't know". They knew what they are getting into (from what was written in Mein Kampf), and so can't play naive about it.

Revenge doesn’t equal war.

No, it doesn't, but when you want revenge so badly as to choose a man like Hitler, you simply don't care wether or not there will be war.

And frankly, from the support Hitler got from the Germans in 1939, I think most of the Germans wanted that war, so eveyone else in Europe will feel their shame and destruction of losing a war.

Remember I did a BA.

Talon, BA in one subject doesn't qulify you as an expert in all subjects.

As I recall, youre BA is in politics.

As much as Politics and History have in common (and they do have a lot), they are not the same.

Anyway I get the feeling that the version of history tought in Britain is different from the version of history I know.

There are simply tons of data most of historians in today's britain simply don't know.

I also see revisionism of history is pretty common thing in Britain - for example, youre notion that nationalism isn't a new phenomanon, but an ancient one (a surprising claim from some who did BA in Politics ), and that there was really an independent state called Palestine, that the Holocaust can be compared to the death of 20 million Russian soldiers, or 30 million Chinese victims of internal civil war, etc.

Remember I've been in Poland, I've seen the actuall places where the history you read about took place.

I talked to people who went through these events.

I have family members who are personally involved into these events.

My family came from that region.

I read books about it too, and not few, but many.

Sometimes it is required you rise above hatred to move on.

What???

Am I to understand from this sentence that I am to rise above my hatred to Nazis? to people who brutally and systematically, in a cold industrial fashion, killed 6 million of my people, including 1.5 million children, in a worriesome scientific effiecency?

To the people who killed all my mother's side grandmother's family?

To people who put my grandfather to a labour camp?!

Never!

Those of the 9 million who weren't killed because they were against the Nazi regime (or because they were targeted by the Nazi regime) could and should rott in hell for alll I care.

[Talon]

No, this is revisionist nonsence.

And anyhow, as I shown, there was no Ukranian nation up untill recent centuries.

And there wasn’t any Israel either, I guess that’s all revisionists nonsense too?hypocritical no?

Anyway, in another thread you claiming (quite wrongly) that I had made the claim that Israel shouldn’t build a barrier… because of jobs :blinks:. After that I find myself sceptical of what you say since it obvious you miss quote your sources and make them up too.

Ukranian nationalism caused my people to lose 300,000-1,000,000 people in the 18th century, and many others in the 20th century.

Ukranian cossacks were a slavic version of the SS for many centuries, doing pogroms in Jewish comunities on daily basis.

And anyhow, as I shown, there was no Ukranian nation up untill recent centuries.

I find it funny you claim Ukraine isn’t a true country then go on about they're atrocities towards Jews dating back 300 hundred years. All you’ve shown is a group of people seeing themselves as Ukrainian did exist, do exist and have their own nation. Currently I don’t give a stuff about what they did to Jews, its as much an issue here as the Roman extermination of the Celts, what’s relevant here is the country’s right to exist.

And on a more personall nore - you do know I am fond of ancient people restoring their independence. But as much you like, this simply isn't the case.

Please, I wouldn’t dream of restoring ever ancient nation on the planet, its impossible.

But I originally wrote about Hitler official anti-Democratic ideology, known by all Germans who listened to even half a speech of he's before he got elected. And anyway, Hitler's entire ideology was made known to public years ago, in Mein Kampf. The Germans can say anything but "we didn't know". They knew what they are getting into (from what was written in Mein Kampf), and so can't play naive about it.

Political ranting, lots of people rant, didn’t mean they believed it would led to a world war. Anyway, Mien Kampf wasn’t even that big a seller until Hitler came to power.

And frankly, from the support Hitler got from the Germans in 1939, I think most of the Germans wanted that war, so eveyone else in Europe will feel their shame and destruction of losing a war.

Support in 1939? What did they have a poll on how much he was liked? If he did get support for the pre-1939 actions I'm not surprised, he conquered terriroties very quickly and will little to no bloodshed, any country would be happy in that time if their leader did the same (now in Europe you'd have more people thinking about the other people's rights, but that though didn't exist back then)

Talon, BA in one subject doesn't qulify you as an expert in all subjects.

In never said all subjects, yet another example of you distorting sources for your own ends. However, while we’re here, in my last year I took a class (and gained a First in it) called “Hitler’s War: The study of German fascism and war from 1918-1945”. Guess what it was about

Anyway I get the feeling that the version of history tought in Britain is different from the version of history I know.

No ****, you seem to have a very anti-European view of History. Mine was probably less-bias.

I also see revisionism of history is pretty common thing in Britain - for example, youre notion that nationalism isn't a new phenomenon

Again distorting history. I actually wrote a dissertation on Scottish Nationalism, in which I wrote in the definition of modern nationalism appeared with the French Renaissance.

and that there was really an independent state called Palestine

As you love pointing out the area of Palestine was called that by the Roman’s… so its been there a while. Doesn't matter if it was independent or not, all that matters is the region became home to a national identity that saw itself as such, same with Ukrane.

Holocaust can be compared to the death of 20 million Russian soldiers, or 30 million Chinese victims of internal civil war, etc.

I hope you’re not claiming the deaths of 50 million people is not important Please explain what you mean.

Remember I've been in Poland, I've seen the actuall places where the history you read about took place.

I talked to people who went through these events.

I have family members who are personally involved into these events.

My family came from that region.

I read books about it too, and not few, but many.

How come no matter what subject we’re debating it always manages to lead back to you.

Am I to understand from this sentence that I am to rise above my hatred to Nazis? to people who brutally and systematically, in a cold industrial fashion, killed 6 million of my people, including 1.5 million children, in a worriesome scientific effiecency?

To the people who killed all my mother's side grandmother's family?

To people who put my grandfather to a labour camp?!

Oh for God’s sakes… Nobody asked you to stop hating Nazis or forget about mass slaughter, what someone did ask you to do what remember that some of the men who died back then weren’t evil, and we’re simply soldiers who were forced into the army, yet would have preferred there to have been no war, and remain at home.

Again, you love misinterpretating people so you can bring the subject back to you.

Those of the 9 million who weren't killed because they were against the Nazi regime (or because they were targeted by the Nazi regime) could and should rott in hell for alll I care.

Even though some were just children drafted into the war in its last days, or bombed to death by the allies. No, the allies had ever right to do what it did to end the war, but I won’t wish little kids who were given a gun and told to shoot without really knowing what it was they were doing to hell.

The situation is never black and white.

Edited September 28, 2004 by Talon S.

[Barnacle Battlefront]

Anyway I get the feeling that the version of history tought in Britain is different from the version of history I know.

No ****, you seem to have a very anti-European view of History. Mine was probably less-bias.

282431[/snapback]

he has a point talon. the history i learn at chool will again show a different side of what happened. that is the problem with history. that is the problem with a lot of things, the POV about what happened will be different.

[Erikl]

he has a point talon. the history i learn at chool will again show a different side of what happened. that is the problem with history. that is the problem with a lot of things, the POV about what happened will be different.

the problem with Talon's version of history, and if he represents the notion of history in Britain, then British version of history, is revisionism. It seem to me that up there in Europe, history is tought in light of the current world events.

If Israel is currently looking bad, than lets down-size the Holocaust.

If the Palestinians don't have any historical ownership on the land, but still call it Palestinian lands instead of disputed territory, then lets invent a fictional historical Palestine.

"My" version of history, or more accurately - the non revisionist and un-biased version of history, is nothing but anti-European. The fact the Europeans have a lot to be shame of about their recent history in their treatments to minorities, doesn't mean that history is anti-European.

On the contrary - if I was to deal with history base on the current situation of Europe, forgetting anything to this point and re-vision the past through today's politics, that would be bias. And that, Talon my friend, is exactly what youre doing.

[Erikl]

And there wasn’t any Israel either, I guess that’s all revisionists nonsense too?hypocritical no?

No, there was a nation and a kingdom called Israel millenias ago.

Actually, the name Israel, in reference to a nation, first appears in Egyptian record of Canaan back in 1208 BC.

That's 3208 years of recorded history

Another example is the Scottish people - they existed long before, and there was a scottish kingdom. The largely obtained their celtic culture too, so one can see them as a direct cultural and ethnical descendants of the ancient celts.

On the other hand, Ukranians and Belarussians are simply Russians who speak a different dialect of Old Eastern Slavonic, shared between all untill seperated by Lithuanian and Mongol occupation.

Ukranian nationalism, is even a more recent phenonmanon.

And if we are at nationalism - nationalism is a very recent phenonmanon, dated to the 18th century largely.

Even Zionism, in it's current national flavour, is a new phenonmanon.

But there is also religious nationalism, which I can't find among Christians (becuase Christianity is a global religion, not an ethnical one), among Jews, dated many centuries ago.

Europeans had to become secular in order for nationalism to be created there (because through secularism, the ethnicall aspect of different nations was more dominant than their religious group).

I find it funny you claim Ukraine isn’t a true country then go on about they're atrocities towards Jews dating back 300 hundred years.

300 years is still recent past - and it's in the scope of what I said: "nationalism is a very recent phenonmanon, dated to the 18th century largely.".

I didn't say Ukraine isn't a true country - I said Ukranian as an ethnic identity and as a nation a pretty recent creation.

Before that they called themselves and were called by others "little Russians", or "Ruthenians".

Currently I don’t give a stuff about what they did to Jews, its as much an issue here as the Roman extermination of the Celts, what’s relevant here is the country’s right to exist.

Talon, 300 years is nowhere near 2,000 years, and the Ukranians still dmire that murderer - Bohdan Khmelniski.

The have a statue of him standing in Kiev.

This is the same nation, while no one can locate for me the current direct descendants of the Romans.

And even if they did - those Romans would have been totally different than the ancient Romans.

Please, I wouldn’t dream of restoring ever ancient nation on the planet, its impossible.

Read it again - I said I am fond of ancient people restoring their independence, not that every ancient people need to do that.

As you love pointing out the area of Palestine was called that by the Roman’s… so its been there a while. Doesn't matter if it was independent or not, all that matters is the region became home to a national identity that saw itself as such, same with Ukrane.

Lol - again distorting history.

As I didn't simply said the Romans called it Palestine, I am becomming sceptical of youre of what you say .

You dropped the important stuff - why and when did the Romans called it Palestine.

Well, in the 100th time, they called it Palestine after they exiled the Jews from Judea, as part of their campaign of rooting out any Jewish character of the land. The name "Palestine" orignated from the Israelites' most fierest foes - the Philistines (which by the time of the Romans were long gone, but like you and many other people can read Jewish history today through the bible, so did the Romans), a greek people who invaded the land from sea.

So the Romans called the land after it's people's most hated foe.

Anyhow - the Palestinians as a different identitfy of people exists only from the 1920s (one date) or 1967 (another optional date).

Before that (even back in 1920s) they saw themselves as simply Arabs, or southern Syrians.

And even before that, they didn't exist - most of them came from the rest of the Arab world, looking for jobs created by Jewish settelment of the land, during the late 19th century and British mandate during the first half of the 20th century.

I hope you’re not claiming the deaths of 50 million people is not important huh.gif Please explain what you mean.

You know exactly what I mean - comparing the Holocaust to simply a death in a war, and that like people died in a war, holding weapons in their hand, killed because they were fighting, to the butchering and slaugthering of men, women and children who have done nothing, who never committed a crime, is simply down sizing the Holocaust.

It is walking on a thin line here from Holocaust denial.

How come no matter what subject we’re debating it always manages to lead back to you.

LOL

looks who is talking - Mr "I have BA you know", "I read books"

Again, you love misinterpretating people so you can bring the subject back to you.

Look who's talking - you misinterpretat almost every sentence I type, so you could write things that you wish to say, instead of staying on topic.

For example, when I gave an example of a country which was considered very civilized at the time, which in the same years produced the greatest horrors people ever saw, so to make a point that people tend to over estimate civilization, you misinterpretat that, again looking to the situation literally instead of as an example or a model where civilization failed.

And even more related - on this thread, when I talked about Hitler's speeched against democracy, as a proof that the Germans knew they were electing a dictator, you started talking about the Germans' will for a war.

Anyway, I think this thread is over.

You and I seem to always go off topic.

I hope this thread won't get locked because of us

[Homer]

Reparations is a major reason why Germany suffered so much after WW2, and why Hitler rose against Germany's neighbors.

Reparations doesn't solve anything, since it can't go back in time and undo what has already been done.

The atrocities suffered under Hitler are no less than the atrocities suffered under Stalin. This is not to degrade the atrocities caused by the Nazi's, but that you will find these actions throughout history, and to punish the Germans for what their parents/grandparents/great grandparents did could generate animosity with the Germans. How would that be beneficial for either country?

[Seraphina]

to punish the Germans for what their parents/grandparents/great grandparents did could generate animosity with the Germans. How would that be beneficial for either country?

Exactly....I think it's a little late to be screaming for money after most of those responsible for what occured, and most of those who experienced it, are no longer alive

Give me a few moments...I'm just going to go and demand an apology from some random Enlighsman for what Edward the Longshanks did to my country

...Either that, or unlike certain people on this site, I could stop using the suffering those who came before my had to endure as some kind of get out of jail free card everytime my country does something barbaric.

[Erikl]

Reparations is a major reason why Germany suffered so much after WW2, and why Hitler rose against Germany's neighbors.

Reparations doesn't solve anything, since it can't go back in time and undo what has already been done.

Agreed.

he atrocities suffered under Hitler are no less than the atrocities suffered under Stalin.

Also agreed - the Russian people suffered the same under Stalin as the Germans did under Hitler.

But the Russians didn't choose Stalin to run the country.

This is not to degrade the atrocities caused by the Nazi's, but that you will find these actions throughout history, and to punish the Germans for what their parents/grandparents/great grandparents did could generate animosity with the Germans.

Saying that things like that happened to others in history, when it didn't, is degrading the Holocaust.

And it also down size the conclusion we have to learn from it.

I do not think the Germans of today should be punished for what their grandparents did, but that need to take responsibilty for that, and it's a burden they have to carry with them. The Nazis, with their actions, insured that.

I still don't understand why I need to look behind my hatred to Wermacht and SS war criminals, who make up for the majority of those 9 million.

The German children who were carrying guns and died, and also the German children who died in German cities because of Allied raids, is totaly on the hands of the German themselves.

They opened that war, they acted like animals, their fate and destiny during the war was their and there's alone.

And they need to take the collective burden of their history.

I know Europe of today would like to hide this and many other skeletons in the closet, so they could preach quitely to the rest of the world about peace and love.

Well to bad for them.

There are things which would never be forgotten.

[Homer]

This is not to degrade the atrocities caused by the Nazi's, but that you will find these actions throughout history, and to punish the Germans for what their parents/grandparents/great grandparents did could generate animosity with the Germans.

Saying that things like that happened to others in history, when it didn't, is degrading the Holocaust.

And it also down size the conclusion we have to learn from it.

Rwanda 1994, the majority Hutus slaughtered an estimated 800,000 of the minority Tutsi population, which is about 75% of Tutsi’s.

This action, regardless of the name you want to call it, was a holocaust, and proved we still have much to learn from the holocaust caused by Nazi’s.

It must be understood that Germany didn’t know what they were getting into when Hitler was elected. Although Hitler won the office of German chancellor in legal fashion, he was determined to rule Germany without the restraint of a democratically elected parliament. February 27, 1933 the nazi’s set fire to the Reichstag (parliament) building, and blamed it on the communists.

A decree was established under the Weimar Constitution, which allowed for the suspension of civil liberties, based on national security. Using force and intimidation against the existing parties, especially those of the socialists and communists, many elected representatives were jailed as political enemies or forced to flee the country. Without political opposition, the decree was never withdrawn.

The common German were not nazi’s and not even nazi sympathizers. They did not want dictatorship, they did not want war, and they did not want the holocaust.

[Erikl]

Rwanda 1994, the majority Hutus slaughtered an estimated 800,000 of the minority Tutsi population, which is about 75% of Tutsi’s.

This action, regardless of the name you want to call it, was a holocaust, and proved we still have much to learn from the holocaust caused by Nazi’s.

True.

I can also name the Aremenian genocide done by the Turks (which they do not take responsibilty for, btw).

And indeed we have much to learn from what the Nazi did - and downgrading it, like other people have done, by equating it to the victims of an armed conflict, doesn't help this.

It's only upset nations who suffered from it.

The common German were not nazi’s and not even nazi sympathizers. They did not want dictatorship, they did not want war, and they did not want the holocaust.

The common German, who elected Hitler to power, might haven't want the holocaust, but the fact that so many Germans took part in it, that so many Germans were in the SS, that so many Germans were in the Nazi party, which was elected and wasn't forced upon the Germans, and the fact that the Germans did nothing when their Jewish neighbours and commrades, who lived with them for centuries, and who have done nothing wrong to them, does make the Germans as a nation responsible for those acts.

And when Hitler was winning the war, the Germans were Nazi sympathizers, they loved their fuhrer, and even when Germany was close to defeat, they still cheered him.

Ofcourse Germans who were persecuted by the Nazi party (homosexuals, mental ills, pacifist groups, Christian democrats, social democracts, and others that I didn't mention) as well as people who helped the victims of the Nazi party (like Oscar Schindler, which was a member of the Nazi party btw), and Germans who opposed the Nazi party's actions - they are all heroes in my view.

Not all the Germans were Nazis, true. But most of the Germans did nothing against the Nazis. They cheered them and admired them.

Edited September 28, 2004 by Erikl

[Talon]

he has a point talon. the history i learn at chool will again show a different side of what happened. that is the problem with history. that is the problem with a lot of things, the POV about what happened will be different.

the problem with Talon's version of history, and if he represents the notion of history in Britain, then British version of history, is revisionism. It seem to me that up there in Europe, history is tought in light of the current world events.

I find it ironic that you bash European history for being from a certain point of view yet deny Israel can view history non objectively in the same why. While we’re on the subject, even the Nazis thought they were the good guys.

If Israel is currently looking bad, than lets down-size the Holocaust.

If the Palestinians don't have any historical ownership on the land, but still call it Palestinian lands instead of disputed territory, then lets invent a fictional historical Palestine.

No one downsizes the holocaust, in Europe it remains the ultimate ‘look at the what humans can sink too, how can we stop it from happening again. You seem to use it as your personal red card against everyone else.

"My" version of history, or more accurately - the non revisionist and un-biased version of history, is nothing but anti-European. The fact the Europeans have a lot to be shame of about their recent history in their treatments to minorities, doesn't mean that history is anti-European.

Thank you for proving my point. You’re admitting to being Europhobic, and hardly objective if your denying anything good has come out of Europe. Weren’t you in another thread going on about how Isreal has a combination of European cultures which makes it a European states… So I guess by your history Israel is included in that taught anti-European history.

And that, Talon my friend, is exactly what youre doing.

Don’t call me your friend if you seek to insult me in the same sentence.

No, there was a nation and a kingdom called Israel millenias ago.

Actually, the name Israel, in reference to a nation, first appears in Egyptian record of Canaan back in 1208 BC.

That's 3208 years of recorded history

As I believe I already said.

On the other hand, Ukranians and Belarussians are simply Russians who speak a different dialect of Old Eastern Slavonic, shared between all untill seperated by Lithuanian and Mongol occupation.

Ukranian nationalism, is even a more recent phenonmanon.

Belarus Ethnicity/race: Belorussian 81.2%, Russian 11.4%, Polish, Ukrainian, and other 7.4%

Ukranian Ethnicity/race: Ukrainian 77.8%, Russian 17.3%, Belarusian 0.6%, Moldovan 0.5%, Crimean Tatar 0.5%, Bulgarian 0.4%, Hungarian 0.3%, Romanian 0.3%, Polish 0.3%, Jewish 0.2%, other 1.8% (2001)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0855617.html

Well they seem to see themselves as different, and in ‘disputed’ territories by the looks of it, seems everyone from Kiev, Poland, Lithuania, Germany, Russia have all claimed that land. Who are you to tell them they stole it from Poland.

And if we are at nationalism - nationalism is a very recent phenonmanon, dated to the 18th century largely.

Evidence of nationalism has dated back thousands of years, its Modern nationalism, which has only been around a few hundred years. There is a difference between the two nationalisms.

I didn't say Ukraine isn't a true country - I said Ukranian as an ethnic identity and as a nation a pretty recent creation.

So? No ones business but their own on how they view themselves.

And even if they did - those Romans would have been totally different than the ancient Romans.

Just as people can’t be blamed for the actions of their forefathers in Germany or East Europe. Blame someone for what they do, not for what their grandfathers did.

You dropped the important stuff - why and when did the Romans called it Palestine.

Well, in the 100th time, they called it Palestine after they exiled the Jews from Judea, as part of their campaign of rooting out any Jewish character of the land. The name "Palestine" orignated from the Israelites' most fierest foes - the Philistines (which by the time of the Romans were long gone, but like you and many other people can read Jewish history today through the bible, so did the Romans), a greek people who invaded the land from sea.

So the Romans called the land after it's people's most hated foe.

History is full of people stealing others land. The European-Americans stole it from Native Americans, the Romans/Germans stole Western Europe from the Celts, Europe occupied Africa etc etc.

Does mean we should go back and rectify it all (although we did with Africa).

At least your admitting the area for a long time was called something else, and in that time new people’s settled in it.

You know exactly what I mean - comparing the Holocaust to simply a death in a war, and that like people died in a war, holding weapons in their hand, killed because they were fighting, to the butchering and slaugthering of men, women and children who have done nothing, who never committed a crime, is simply down sizing the Holocaust.

7,000,000 Soviet deaths were civilians, not soldiers. 3,600,000 German deaths were civilian, 150,000 more than their military. Now the with the German’s… tough, we had to kill you to win a war… sorry… although I wonder how many were children. But with the Soviet civilians, I wouldn’t demean their deaths so easily.

It is walking on a thin line here from Holocaust denial.

Oh grow up! I’m not denying the holocaust and you’re the only one who believes I’m doing such, I’m saying that as far as I’m concerned a civilian death is a death, and unlike some I’m not going to say its less or more important due to the place or method or race of death, or the race or religion of that individual.

If your going to start claiming I’m racist again I’m not interested in anything you have to say.

LOL

looks who is talking - Mr "I have BA you know", "I read books"

Which I only bring up when baka start claiming I don’t know what I’m talking about. You on the other hand seem to manage to bring Anti-Semitism into every debate.

For example, when I gave an example of a country which was considered very civilized at the time, which in the same years produced the greatest horrors people ever saw, so to make a point that people tend to over estimate civilization, you misinterpretat that, again looking to the situation literally instead of as an example or a model where civilization failed.

Excuse me? I’m very much aware civilisation fell apart in the 1930s, as I said, Europe looks at that period and asks itself how to make sure it never happens again. If you don’t say it’s being an example, no one will treat it as such.

And even more related - on this thread, when I talked about Hitler's speeched against democracy, as a proof that the Germans knew they were electing a dictator, you started talking about the Germans' will for a war.

On the contary, I started talking about the war, because you said, and I quote:

“They also knew he would cancel democracy - because he promised it almost in every speech.

So the lost of 9 million Germans because of Hilter's regime is their fault alone.”

9 Million lost in war.

They may well have none that democracy would end, but they didn’t expect a war.

Anyway, I think this thread is over.

You and I seem to always go off topic.

I hope this thread won't get locked because of us

Another agree is disagree? I’m fine with that.

[Talon]

Reparations is a major reason why Germany suffered so much after WW2, and why Hitler rose against Germany's neighbors.

Reparations doesn't solve anything, since it can't go back in time and undo what has already been done.

The atrocities suffered under Hitler are no less than the atrocities suffered under Stalin. This is not to degrade the atrocities caused by the Nazi's, but that you will find these actions throughout history, and to punish the Germans for what their parents/grandparents/great grandparents did could generate animosity with the Germans. How would that be beneficial for either country?

Agree, best go hand in hand into the future in peace.

Give me a few moments...I'm just going to go and demand an apology from some random Enlighsman for what Edward the Longshanks did to my country

...Either that, or unlike certain people on this site, I could stop using the suffering those who came before my had to endure as some kind of get out of jail free card everytime my country does something barbaric.

A statement completely lost one some

Also agreed - the Russian people suffered the same under Stalin as the Germans did under Hitler.

But the Russians didn't choose Stalin to run the country.

Agreed, although I watching a documentary the other day and it says most Russian actually forgive Stalin for the atrocities because they appreciate it was all to make Russia a super power…

and it's a burden they have to carry with them.

I disagree, it’s a burden ALL humans should carry, because all are capable of it in the darkness of the human soul. By burden I mean not punished for fore-parents actions, rather we must ALL always remember the warnings of history.

I still don't understand why I need to look behind my hatred to Wermacht and SS war criminals, who make up for the majority of those 9 million.

Nobody said hatred for the SS, they were scum, and so were most of the Whermacht. The issue is that with those thousands there may have been the a few hundreds who were only there because of the draft and fighting for a party their neighbours voted in. And by the end the Nazis were sending children to fight…. The most innocent of us made to fight a war between adults. Anyway, as I already stated about 55% of German war fatalities were actually civilian, not military, good riddance to those building bombs or who voted Nazi, but I pity those who did not wish the Nazi regime onto Germany.

The German children who were carrying guns and died, and also the German children who died in German cities because of Allied raids, is totaly on the hands of the German themselves.

We did what we had to do. But once we again we are on the issue of children.

However much we needed to bomb that area to get at the workers and the factories, it is wrong to look at a child and not see a child, but collateral damage.

I know Europe of today would like to hide this and many other skeletons in the closet, so they could preach quitely to the rest of the world about peace and love.

Well to bad for them.

There are things which would never be forgotten.

Again the negative and completely untrue belief of European nations. I thought you said we would drop this issue?

Europe is very open with its history, most schools teach world war History’s, everyone knows the horrors, nobody denies them, switch on the History channel, 9 times out of 10 its talking about WW2 (hell, an add for a history of the SS just appeared on screne, and at the mo there's a domcu on Britain betraying the Arabs when they were promaced independence ). As I said, we focus on it to make sure in Europe it is never done again.

We don’t, despite your constant claims, hid it. But that doesn’t mean the generations who follow have be consumed by it day after day, and not tell the world the truth. That Europe has put much of its darkest past behind it, not in denial or forgetting, but rather to show that we have learned from it and changed.

Rwanda 1994, the majority Hutus slaughtered an estimated 800,000 of the minority Tutsi population, which is about 75% of Tutsi’s.

This action, regardless of the name you want to call it, was a holocaust, and proved we still have much to learn from the holocaust caused by Nazi’s.

Agreed

It must be understood that Germany didn’t know what they were getting into when Hitler was elected. Although Hitler won the office of German chancellor in legal fashion, he was determined to rule Germany without the restraint of a democratically elected parliament. February 27, 1933 the nazi’s set fire to the Reichstag (parliament) building, and blamed it on the communists.

A decree was established under the Weimar Constitution, which allowed for the suspension of civil liberties, based on national security. Using force and intimidation against the existing parties, especially those of the socialists and communists, many elected representatives were jailed as political enemies or forced to flee the country. Without political opposition, the decree was never withdrawn.

Agreed

And indeed we have much to learn from what the Nazi did - and downgrading it, like other people have done, by equating it to the victims of an armed conflict, doesn't help this.

I disagree, the main horrific part about the Holocaust was the industrialised slaughter, not that it was of civilians (that was just part), as many atrocities have been committed against civilians.

A civilian life ultimately is a life. An many of those you brush off as armed conflict were just civilians killed for being a particular race or religion, which is genocide.

[Homer]

Rwanda 1994, the majority Hutus slaughtered an estimated 800,000 of the minority Tutsi population, which is about 75% of Tutsi’s.

This action, regardless of the name you want to call it, was a holocaust, and proved we still have much to learn from the holocaust caused by Nazi’s.

True.

I can also name the Aremenian genocide done by the Turks (which they do not take responsibilty for, btw).

And indeed we have much to learn from what the Nazi did - and downgrading it, like other people have done, by equating it to the victims of an armed conflict, doesn't help this.

It's only upset nations who suffered from it.

I personally have never downgraded the holocaust, nor do I know of anyone who has. The Rwanda holocaust/massacre/genocide(whatever you want to call it) is not an armed conflict involving two armed hostile armies combating each other. Instead it is the majority Hutus slaughtering an unarmed minority Tutsi’s. To state that what I have posted would upset nations who have suffered from the holocaust only shows you know nothing of which you are talking about

The common German, who elected Hitler to power, might haven't want the holocaust, but the fact that so many Germans took part in it, that so many Germans were in the SS, that so many Germans were in the Nazi party, which was elected and wasn't forced upon the Germans, and the fact that the Germans did nothing when their Jewish neighbours and commrades, who lived with them for centuries, and who have done nothing wrong to them, does make the Germans as a nation responsible for those acts.

And when Hitler was winning the war, the Germans were Nazi sympathizers, they loved their fuhrer, and even when Germany was close to defeat, they still cheered him.

When Germany was winning the war, they loved their Fuhrer to the extent that he made Germany a proud and powerful nation that punished those that brought the hardships of Versailles. The Germans were not, however, supporters or sympathizers of the nazi’s. When Germany was in decline, the population hated Hitler, and blamed him. But due to the secret police, were scared to voice their true frustrations.

At any rate, Germany has previously recognized and condemned the acts caused by the nazi’s. To force reparations on the Germans would not be contructive