Finis Germania... Rolf Peter Sieferle

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/08/opinion/sunday/germanys-newest-intellectual-antihero.html

But Mr. Sieferle is critical of Germany’s postwar culture of Holocaust memory, which he argues has taken on the traits of a religion. The country’s sins are held to be unique and absolute, beyond either redemption or comparison. “The First Commandment,” he writes, “is ‘Thou shalt have no Holocausts before me.’ ” Hitler, in retrospect, turns out to have done a paradoxical thing: He bound Germans and Jews together in a narrative for all time. In an otherwise relativistic and disenchanted world, Mr. Sieferle writes, Germans appear in this narrative as the absolute enemies of our common humanity, as a scapegoat people. The role is hereditary. There are Germans whose grandparents were not born when the war ended, yet they, too, must take on the role.

In this, Mr. Sieferle sees an “affinity” between Germans now and “the Jew as he was understood in the Christian past.” Specifically, Jews were cast as either indifferent to or responsible for the crucifixion. In the eyes of today’s world, German identity symbolizes a similar rejection of some kind of revelation. “In every city Christianity had built cathedrals to its murdered God,” Mr. Sieferle writes. “Today, the Jews, to whom God himself had promised eternity, build memorials throughout the world to their murdered coreligionists. Not only are the victims ascribed a moral superiority, the wrongdoers and their symbols are ascribed an eternal depravity.”

Mr. Sieferle’s is a complex argument. It is linked to his concern, in “Das Migrationsproblem,” with the challenges of mass migration. He believed that Germany’s self-demonization had left it unable to say anything but yes to a million or so migrants seeking entry to Europe in 2015 and that such a welcome was unsustainable. Whether he was right or wrong, this was a concern shared by many Germans, and not necessarily an idle expression of animus.

Siguen en schock: la identidad del "nuevo judío" y el "nuevo alemán"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,797008,00.html

• Judíos cansadosd e ser vistos como víctimas
• Judíos cansados de ser puestos en pedestales
• Judíos cansados de si son judío alemanes o alemanes judíos
• Judíos que saben reir del Holocausto pero alemanes no sabem siquiera si hacerlo o si es correcto.
• ¿Judíos que están ahí en Alemania como justificación moral del que fué el perpretador?
• Alemanes atormentados que aun no les gusta quienes son o no saben como definirse.
• La imagen ritual y casi mística del judío victimizado que solo es para generar judeofilia.
• ¿Solo pueden los judíos bromear sobre el Holocausto o pueden hacerlo otros?
• Reir sin olvidar, comentar sin trivializar
• ¿Aceptaran los judíos esto? ...when German novelist Martin Walser, in a speech accepting the Frankfurt Book Fair Peace Prize in 1998, condemned the "Holocaust industry," saying Auschwitz had been used as a "routine threat, a tool of intimidation, a moral cugel" against today's Germans
• ¿Se permitiran todos aceptar lo que el escritor Botho Strauss  expresa en el sentido que la sociedad alemana ha quedado paralizada por el estigma nazi y eso debe terminar ya? 
• Los judíos no deberían ni desean responder la pregunta de ¿Qué son o qué es la identidad alemana?
• Judíos artos de clichés antisemitas. (Pero que quitando el elemento anti no son del todo falsos tampoco)
• ¿Dónde o como acomodar el Holocausto en le historia de Alemania, Israel, ambos en conjunto y de los alemanes judíos?

Un artículo atractivo, claro desde la óptica de la disimuladamente pero consistente publicación pro judía y algo aplaca/castiga Alemania como lo es Der Speigel.

Puede Alemania (el mundo) criticar a Israel: Un debate donde el pro-Israel (con todo y excesos) salió apaleado.

Interesante serie de correos electrónicos que tuvieron lugar a raiz de declaraciones del ministro de relaciones exteriores de Israel. En una equina un judío hijo de polacos a la defensa de Israel de nombre Henryk M. Broder esta mezcla le determina casi por naturaleza anti aleman y por ende pro Israeli y sionista, en la otra un alemán  de nombre Eric Follath hijo de alemanes étnicos salidos de Hungría, ambos colaboradores de Der Spiegel.

No se si sea mi perspectiva pero es claro, que a cada argumento y solida construcción de Follath, Broder respondía solo con el típico manejo del discurso Israeli-judío-sionista, acertando en un par de aspectos desde mi oprtica pero de ahi en fuera el discurso y argumentación solido e integro de Follath pusieron la lápida a cualquier pretensión que Broder tuviese.

Una interesante serie de correos electrónicos que decidieron poner en el dominio publico, recomiendo su lectura. Está en inglés lo que facilita su traducción en linea al espanol para quien lo requiera.

A GREAT DEBATE

Are Germans Allowed to Criticize Israel?

Germany's relationship with Israel has never been easy. How much criticism from Germany is allowed? And at what point does it become anti-Semitic? SPIEGEL reporters Erich Follath and Henryk M. Broder conducted a heated debate on this thorny German issue in the following exchange of e-mails.

Germany, 1939; America, 2009; And Perverted Science: Los alemanes en 1938 ¿ Amantes de la guerra ?

De los pocos artículos documentados y de perspectiva histórica en apego a los hechos tomando como referencia apuntes del corresponsal de CBS en Alemania, william Shirer. Muestra un pueblo alemán no ferviente de la guerra como se nos hace creer y como el Reich desoyó a su pueblo, así como ahora en comparativa EU los hace también.

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/31524/26/

En español: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&langpair=en%7Ces&u=http://mwcnews.net/content/view/31524/26/&client=tmpg

Germany, 1939; America, 2009; And Perverted Science

It has become commonplace for Congress to ignore the public’s yearnings for peace and to support the Pentagon’s now habitual wars of aggression. Last November’s anti-war vote illustrates this disconnect between public opinion and public policy. War-weary Americans went to the polls believing they were voting for peace but President Obama has instead merely shifted the focus of military action from Iraq to Afghanistan while planning to maintain a major garrison of 50,000 troops in Iraq, hardly a “withdrawal.”

U.S. taxpayers---who already pay more for wars than the rest of the world combined---are not blood-thirsty. They didn’t want any war against Iraq to begin with and have long preferred diplomacy to conflict. In January, 2003, a CBS News/New York Times poll found 63% of Americans wanted President Bush to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis compared with just 31% who wanted to intervene militarily.


This great cry for peace, not war, arose despite a shower of lies from the White House that Saddam Hussein threatened America with WMD. As for Afghanistan, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll last February, showed 5l% of respondents opposed to the war in Afghanistan, compared to 47% in favor. Yet, President Obama is plunging ahead against the majority and mindless of the cost to a tottering domestic economy starved for good jobs, good housing, good education, good medical care, and good credit.

Contrast President Obama’s attitude with President Franklin Roosevelt’s careful reading of public opinion in the Thirties that caused him to go slow even in aiding countries threatened by Hitler. FDR never did help the embattled Loyalist government in Madrid fight the insurgent generals led by Franco and their Nazi allies. And he moved slowly coming to Britain’s aid before providing “lend lease” to London. FDR consistently acted in concert with public opinion, reading the lips of an “isolationist” public that did not want to get embroiled in a second European war in 20 years.

The actions of Presidents Bush and Obama that run contrary to public opinion are not unique to America. This disconnect between public and presidential desire recalls the opposition of what likely was a majority of the German people to Hitler in 1939, people who feared to stand up to Hitler and were led to their doom by their Nazi leaders. A joke Germans told at the time asked: “Hitler, Goebbels, and Goering were in a plane that crashed and they were all killed. Who was saved?” The answer: “Germany.”

Back in 1938, ordinary Germans feared Hitler’s aggressiveness would lead to war. Commentator William Shirer, who covered Germany for CBS, wrote in his “Berlin Diary” on Sept. 27, 1938, that when a motorized column paraded through the streets after a Hitler speech, Berliners didn’t both to watch but crowded into the subways to go home. They “refused to look on” and “the handful that did at the curb (stood) in utter silence unable to find a word of cheer for the flower of youth going off to the glorious war.”

Hitler, Shirer recalled, stood on his balcony “and there weren’t two hundred people in the street or in the great square of the Wilhelmsplatz. Hitler looked grim, then angry, and soon went inside, leaving his troops to parade by unreviewed.” Two hundred onlookers in a city of five million souls! Shirer said what he saw rekindled his faith in the German public because “They are dead set against war.” They were right to be, of course. By the time the war was over, Germany lost 5.5-million men and 1.5-million civilians.

The Pentagon recognizes Americans today do not want war, and has devised ways to circumvent the anti-war movement. There are no conscriptions as during Viet Nam. Today’s oil wars are being fought partly by contractors to hold down official military casualties. The Pentagon is also buying good will by farming out billions in biological warfare research to colleges and universities.

The challenge to Americans today is as formidable as that faced by the German people of 1939. We have a moral obligation to stop the Warfare State.

The robot planes now swooping down on Afghanistan and Pakistan are but crude harbingers of future Pentagon technology that will employ weapons of increasing sophistication directed by remote operators seated at surveillance systems like video gamesters. These operators may employ a variety of ever more lethal and/or incapacitating weapons---ranging from guided missiles to tungsten poles hurled down from space platforms at supersonic speeds to destroy victims. Moreover, the Pentagon is pouring over a trillion dollars into new research to refine its sophisticated killing systems. And what may be used on foreigners, may also be used on Americans.

Thus it has come to pass that the nation that gave the world such brilliant inventions as the electric light, airplane, phonograph, telegraph, movies, automobile assembly line, and telephone(all developed at private expense) now sags under the weight of a government war machine that pays fine scientific minds to work at the Devil’s Bench. In his famous address of June 18, 1940, Winston Churchill denouncing Hitler spoke words that sadly apply to America’s Pentagon today: “But if we fail, then the whole world…will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister…by the lights of a perverted science.”

If the American people do not stop the Pentagon war machine, like the German public before them under Hitler they will bear a heavy responsibility for the ensuing calamities caused by their inaction

Es tiempo de disculparse con Alemania y los alemanes sobre las atrocidades a que se les ha sometido también

Un interesante artículo que marca algo cierto: Alemania ha hecho lo posible por disculparse y activamente enmendar sus actos como potencia colonia o Imperial o del Tercer Reich, la noción parecería que unícamente ellos son los que han lastimado y dañadoen todo el orbe como si no hubiera habido potencias imperialisats mas perfidas y brutales especialmente Inglaterra y ahora Estados Unidos y por sobre esto también está otro factor mas olvidado aun: el sufrimiento y atrocidades que el pueblo aleman ha sufrido de parte de terceros a lo largo de su historia, atrocidades y crímenes de guerra por los que nadie aun se ha disculpado con Alemania.

Dejo el artículo en inglés para que conserve su exactitud en lo que plantea:

http://www.meadowfreepress.com/humanities/0,1873,356602,00.html



German Memories in Asia - Germans' Sufferings

There was frustration always in Germany though they apologized to the world for the massacres of Jews, Gypsies and other atrocities committed by Adolph Hitler and his Nazi Forces, the world has not so far apologized properly for the atrocities against the Germans around the world.

Germany apologized in 2004 for the colonial-era genocide, which killed 65,000 Herero people in what is now Namibia. Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Germany's development aid minister, at a ceremony to mark the 100th anniversary of the Hereros' 1904-1907 press release sample against the German rulers said: "We Germans accept our historic and moral responsibility and the guilt incurred by Germans at that time".

German Chancellor Angela Merkel shared her grievances in front of Israel's national flag during a tree-planting ceremony near the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Museum in Jerusalem on January 30, 2006 and laid a wreath for the six million Jews killed in the Nazi Holocaust.

But the Germans had a general opinion of the world’s resentment over the German people’s sufferings.

Ethnic Germans were systematically targeted based on their ethnicity in various parts of the world. Anti-German hostilities had campaign press release developed after the major World Wars of recent past, for which the German state had been held responsible. The German populations were identified with German nationalist regimes of Kaiser Wilhelm or Nazis.

This was the case in the World War I era; persecution of Germans in the United States and in Eastern and Central Europe following end of World War II. Many victims of these persecutions did not in fact have any connection to those regimes.

In other cases, German populations had been persecuted because they were perceived as lacking proper ties to the country in which they lived. This includes the persecution of ethnic German Mennonite, Amish and Hutterite communities in the United States and of Tyrolean Germans in South Tyrol.

In the case of South Tyrol, these hostilities hit the historically German population of an Austrian territory which had been annexed by Italy how to write a release World War I. Following the rise of the Fascist movement of Mussolini, the ethnic Germans of South Tyrol faced growing persecution. Their names, and the names of the towns and places in the area, were forcibly changed to Italian.

In addition, Mussolini engaged in a vigorous campaign to resettle ethnic Italians in the region. Many Tyroleans fled to Germany during this time, and the matter of South Tyrol became a source of friction between Hitler and Mussolini.

After the end of World War II, the organised persecution of Germans in the South Tyrol largely came to an end, although ethnic strife continued for decades.

El mito de la (sola) culpabilidad alemana en la segunda guerra mundial

The Myth Of German Culpability
The 2nd World War
The True Sequence Of Aggression
By Michael Walsh
10-4-8


One of the great mysteries of life is that despite the evidence to the contrary millions of otherwise intelligent people still believe that Germany was the all powerful aggressor during the 2nd World War. Nothing better than these myths illustrate the mind-bending power of propaganda.

The provable facts suggest that Germany was the victim and not the perpetrator of naked neighboring aggression. The subsequent allied military triumph was followed by the triumph of the propagandists whose pressing need was to depict the victor nations as being the victim.

THE BRUTISH EMPIRE

"Germany is too strong. We must destroy her."
- Winston Churchill, Nov. 1936.

"In no country has the historical blackout been more intense and effective than in Great Britain. Here it has been ingeniously christened The Iron Curtain of Discreet Silence. Virtually nothing has been written to reveal the truth about British responsibility for the Second World War and its disastrous results." - Harry Elmer Barnes. American Historian

"The war was not just a matter of the elimination of Fascism in Germany, but rather of obtaining German sales markets." - Winston Churchill. March, 1946.

"Britain was taking advantage of the situation to go to war against Germany because the Reich had become too strong and had upset the European balance." - Ralph F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics

"I emphasized that the defeat of Germany and Japan and their elimination from world trade would give Britain a tremendous opportunity to swell her foreign commerce in both volume and profit." - Samuel Untermeyer, The Public Years, p.347.

On September 2nd 1939 a delegate of the Labour Party met with the British Foreign Minister Halifax in the lobby of Parliament. 'Do you still have hope?'he asked. 'If you mean hope for war,' answered Halifax, 'then your hope will be fulfilled tomorrow. 'God be thanked!' replied the representative of the British Labour Party. - Professor Michael Freund.

"In Britain, Lord Halifax was reported as being 'redeemed'. He ordered beer. We laughed and joked." - H. Roth. Are We Being Lied To?

"In April, 1939, (four months before the outbreak of war) Ambassador William C. Bullitt, whom I had known for twenty years, called me to the American Embassy in Paris. The American Ambassador told me that war had been decided upon. He did not say, nor did I ask, by whom. He let me infer it. ... When I said that in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, the Ambassador replied: "'what of it? There will not be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth bolshevising." - - Karl von Wiegand, April, 23rd, 1944, Chicago Herald American

"I felt sorry for the German people. We were planning - and we had the force to carry out our plans - to obliterate a once mighty nation." - Admiral Daniel Leahy; U.S Ambassador

MYTH 1. THE GERMAN NATION IS AN AGGRESSIVE NATION

The facts prove otherwise. A Study of War by Prof. Quincy Wright, shows that in the period from 1480 to 1940 there were 278 wars involving European countries whose percentage participation was as follows:

ENGLAND28%
FRANCE26%
SPAIN23%
RUSSIA22%
AUSTRIA19%
TURKEY15%
POLAND11%
SWEDEN9%
ITALY9%
NETHERLANDS8%
GERMANY (INCLUDING PRUSSIA)8%
DENMARK7%

Likewise, Pitirim Sorokin, Vol.111, Part.11, Social and Cultural Dynamics, shows that from the 12th Century to 1925 the percentage of years in which leading European powers have been at war is as follows. (p.352).

COUNTRY PERCENTAGE OF YEARS AT WAR

SPAIN67%
POLAND58%
ENGLAND56%
FRANCE50%
RUSSIA46%
HOLLAND44%
ITALY36%
GERMANY28%

Sorokin concludes therefore, "that Germany has had the smallest and Spain the largest percent of years at war." Of leading modern European states, England, France and Russia show clearly twice the aggressive tendencies of Germany.

From the years 1815 to 1907 the record stands as follows:

BRITAIN10 warsRUSSIA7 warsFRANCE5 warsAUSTRIA3 warsPRUSSIA-GERMANY3 wars

GERMANY DID NOT WANT WAR

"I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power, and we were encouraged by the 'Americans' around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler's pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realize that Hitler was right." - Attorney General, Sir. Hartley Shawcross, March,16th, 1984

"The last thing Hitler wanted was to produce another great war." - Sir. Basil Liddell Hart

"I see no reason why this war must go on. I am grieved to think of the sacrifices which it will claim. I would like to avert them." - Adolf Hitler, July, 1940.

Winston Churchill agrees: "We entered the war of our own free will, without ourselves being directly assaulted." - Guild Hall Speech, July 1943.

MYTH.2 THE GERMAN ARMED FORCES
OUTNUMBERED THEIR NEIGHBOURS

POLAND

30 Active Divisions
10 Reserve Divisions
12 Large Cavalry Brigades
Poland had nearly 2,500,000 trained men available for mobilisations.

FRANCE

110 Divisions
65 were active divisions
Including 5 cavalry divisions, two mechanised divisions, one armoured division, the rest being infantry. On the German borders stood the French commandstood 85 Divisions and could mobilise 5,000,000-armed troops. These were supported backed by five British divisions.

BRITAIN

Britain's relatively small but high quality Regular Army was supported by the Territorial Army consisting of 26 Divisions with plans well in hand to boost this to 55 divisions. This of course was in turn supported by the then world's largest conscription army holding an empire 'upon which the sun never set.'

The British Empire consisted also of the former German 'empire' of New Guinea, Nauru, Western Samoa, South West Africa, Quattar, Palestine, Transjordan, Tanganyika, Iraq, Togoland and the Cameroons. These territories stolen from Germany added another 1,061,755 square miles to the British Empire, the equivalent of 35 Scotlands

GERMANY

Against these formidable forces Germany was able to mobilise just ninety-eight divisions of which only fifty-two were active (including Austrian divisions). Of the remaining 46 divisions only 10 were fit for action on mobilisation and even in these the bulk of them were raw recruits who had been serving for less than one month.

The other 36 divisions consisted mainly of Great War veterans over the age of forty who were unfamiliar with modern weapons and up to date military techniques.

THE BALANCE SHEET

On the balance sheets it can be seen that the Poles and French alone, not counting Britain and its Empire, had the equivalent of 130 divisions against a total of 98 German divisions of with 1/3rd were virtually untrained men.

In terms of trained soldiers the Germans were at an even bigger disadvantage. (Note at the outbreak of war over 50% of the German armed forces was horse drawn).

WAR IN THE AIR

"The superiority of the Luftwaffe has been greatly exaggerated to create the impression that Britain was the underdog; a David fighting Goliath. In the run up to the Battle of Britain (August 10th 194) the Luftwaffe had 929 fighters available; mostly single-engine Messerschmitt 109s. Of these 227 were twin-engine long-range Me110s which had a top speed of 350mph. Although it had a faster rate of climb it was inferior when turning or manoeuvring.

The ME109's range restricted its field of operation. Their real fields of operation ­ out and back ­ was a little over 100 miles, a flight time of barely 95 minutes and a tactical flight time of just 75 minutes. This was a sever handicap when it is considered that whereas the Luftwaffe pilots were operating scores of miles from their base, British pilots were often within sight of their own. This handicap was made more critical by the fact that downed RAF pilots could be rescued whilst Luftwaffe pilots were of course ­ if they were lucky ­ imprisoned.

The twin-engine ME110 was a slow flyer able to cruise at a little less than 300mph and was easily outpaced by the RAF's Spitfires. It was also 'sluggish in acceleration and difficult to manoeuvre.'

The greatest handicap for the Germans however was there primitive radio equipment. Unlike the British versions it was poor in air-to-air operation and could not be controlled by the ground.

On the British side a total surpassing 650 fighter aircraft had been amassed by mid-July, mostly Hurricanes and Spitfires although including nearly 100 of the older types. During that whole year Britain produced 4,238 fighters compared with a derisory 3,000 manufactured by Germany.

In terms of armaments the noted British military historian, B.H Liddell Hart noted: "What is quite clear, and became evident at the start, was that the German bombers were too poorly armed to be able to beat off the British fighters without a fighter escort of their own." ­ History of the Second World War.

GERMANY AND OTHER FREE COUNTRIES ATTACKED

Poland carried out the first acts of aggression. In March 1939 Poland, already occupying German territory 'acquired' in 1919 invaded Czechoslovakia. During the months running up to the outbreak of war Polish armed forces repeatedly violated German borders. On August 31st 1939 Polish irregular armed forces launched a full scale attack on the German border town of Gleiwitz.

Within hours Germany retaliated resulting in Britain and France's declarations of war on the German nation on 3rd Sept 1939. In Britain's case this declaration of war was constitutionally illegal. It was not as it should have been ratified by parliament.

Despite her borders being constantly attacked by the numerically superior armies of France and England, and economically strangled by world finance, Germany refused to be drawn, negotiated for peace and turned the other cheek for ten months.

Only when it accurately learned that England intended to broaden the western front by occupying the Low Countries and Norway, thus surrounding and threatening Germany's entire borders, did Germany carry out a pre-emptive strike.

Germany's defensive counter attack was launched on 10th May 1940. This resulted in the rout of 330,000 British and French troops by a significantly smaller army. It was one of the worst debacles in military history. (The British press called it 'a miracle).

Russia invaded Finland on Nov 30th 1939. Britain (not for the first time) and France invaded Norway's neutrality on 8th April 1940. To avoid attack via the Baltic Sea Germany counter-attacked. In the small battles that followed (Trondheim) 2,000 German troops routed 13,000 British troops. They were evacuated on 1st May. To save face Churchill disembarked 20,000 British troops at Narvik. They were driven out by 2,000 Austrian Alpine troops.

Canada declared war on Germany 10th Sept 1939. In June 1940 Soviet Russia invaded Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Rumania. In June 1940, Britain declared war on Finland, Rumania and Hungary whilst also occupying defenseless Iceland. All of these acts of aggression in gross violation of international law and previously signed trea

ties.