Conference taveng::bagels

    RE: 582.0 

    >president of West Germany's Bundestag...turned out to be a Neo-Nazi.

    If you are referring to the incident that happened this week, the
    problem was not that he was a Neo-Nazi, but that he made a very
    inept speech to the Bundestag in commemoration or Kristallnacht.
    
    Apparently, he was talking about the way the Germans supported Hitler
    in the '30s and made it sound like it was a good thing.  Several
    members of the Bundestag walked out in protest.  He later said that
    wasn't the way he meant it and submitted an apology and his
    resignation.  To the best of my knowledge he was accused of
    insensitivity and stupidity, but not Nazism. 

    "And as for the Jews, hadn't they in the past, after all, sought
    a position that was not their place?  Mustn't they now accept
    a bit of curbing?  Hadn't they, in fact, earned being put in their
    place?" - excerpt
    

    
    "Didn't Hitler bring to reality what Wilhelm II had only promised,
    that is to lead the German's to glorious times? Wasn't he chosen
    by Providence, a F�hrer such as is given to the people only once
    in a thousand years?  For the fate of the Germans and European Jews,
    Hitler's successes were perhaps even more fateful than his crimes
    and misdeeds.  The years from 1933 to 1938, even from a distant retro-
    spective and in the knowledge of what followed, are still a fascinating
    thing today, since throughout history, there was hardly a parallel
    to Hitler's triumphant procession during the first years." - extract

    Those extacts would be a lot less alarming if they were preceeded
    by something like:
    
    It's not surprising that the German people, especially the naive,
    fell for what the Nazis were telling them in the middle thirties.
    Everthing Hitler told them fit their preconceptions, everything
    he claimed seemed reasonable to them.  From such a persons' point
    of view, it all made sense...<and follow here with the quotes,
    showing how, for example, the people had wanted to be led to a 
    glorious German future, and haden't Hitler started to do so, or
    claim to have started to do so, as far as the typical uneducated
    ethnocentric German was concerned, etc.>
    
    Long passages of rhetoric with a parallel construction are usually
    hammering in a point.  But it is some other passage which makes
    the point (consider Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech).
    Leaving out that introductory passage is removing the context, and
    thus (possibly) misrepresenting the quote.
    
    		-John Bishop

>    It's not surprising that the German people, especially the naive,
>    fell for what the Nazis were telling them in the middle thirties.

	People weren't NAIVE. They condoned it. Supported it. Hitler
	made them feel good. If one looks throughout history, populations
	are generally predisposed to supporting KICK ASS leaders.
	It is one main reason why politicians make an effort to distance
	themselves from groups like the ACLU or why Margaret Thatcher
	can limit the freedom of press.

	Darryl

   If you read the entire speech by the President of the Bundestag,
   you can see that all the part about why the Germans supported the
   Nazis is a piece of sustained irony. I agree that it was inept and
   insensitive to make such a speech on such an occasion; as (I think)
   the leader of the West German Jewish community said, "At the
   funeral of a murder victim, you don't make a speech analyzing the
   fascinating personality of the murderer." It would have been
   alright as an academic exercise.

   I believe that I read that the President's parents were anti-Nazis,
   and suffered for it, so I think it's a little unlikely that he's a
   neo-Nazi. 

   As for whether he was right in saying that the Germans were naive,
   rather than supporters of Hitler - I'm inclined to agree with .5,
   but if you're a German, you might find this too hard to face.


   Marge

    Jenninger was guilty of ineptitude in choosing to use irony in his
    speech to the bundestag.  I must admit that at first when hearing
    about it concluded that he was another of those "closet" nazis before
    I heard further clarification.
    
    At least he has more honor than the so-called president of Austria.
    
    David

       Marvin Kalb analyzed this speech on a PBS radio show. 
       
       Kalb prefaced his analysis by explaining that he was a Jew and
       married to a women who had fled the Nazis. 
       
       In Kalb's view, the reason this speech raised such a flap in
       Germany was that the Budestag President TOLD THE TRUTH. The
       quotes given in the previous replies to this note, as well as
       others Kalb gave, described prevalent German attitudes at the
       time of Hitler's rise to power. Today's Germans do not want to
       hear this. Thus the resignation. 
       

I'm pretty sure this analysis was given by Daniel Schorr (on Weekend
Edition last Saturday).

M.

>	Budestag President TOLD THE TRUTH ...

	You hit the nail on the head. 

	Darryl

    re: .9
    
    Yes, it was Daniel Schorr.
    
    David

    On the news reports of this "incident" I found it interesting that
    the only person(that was shown) even speaking to him was a West
    German Jewish leader. He shook his hand said something and left.
    Everyone else just walked by, leaving him brushiing his hair back
    and looking quite uncomfortable.
    
    

    The Wall Street Journal of today has an editorial on this.
    
    Their point of view: the listeners knew the "offensive" remarks
    were not offensive (they had the context), but they also knew the
    media would go bonkers, and decided to act in a way which the
    media would approve of, rather than the right way.
    
    My point of view: I've had sufficient failures of audiences to
    catch on to irony or quoted speech or explications of a third
    party's views that I believe most of the audience didn't get it.
    Peoples' ability to understand complex ideas disappears when you
    hit a hot button.
    
        			-John Bishop

    I have read the entire speech.  There is no question in my mind
    that the speaker was being ironic. He was, in effect, saying, that
    this was how Germans of the time had seen things; that this was
    how ready they were to be mislead; that this was how stupid and
    brutal they were; and that in this, they saw glory.

re:	.14
I had exactly the same feeling about the speech as you did!

Moreover, if I were an ** average ** young German with little/no
particular feelings about the holocaust/Jews, I would
probably be incensed that all this fuss is made when
a speaker "errs" in his "style". Making a fuss
about such matters only increases antisemitic tendencies
or potentialities. Not only that but I think that making noise
about this sort of thing is a figleaf that certain anti-Israel
groups in Germany use to cover their own anti-semitism. They
say, as it were, "WE aren't anti-semitic; look how sensitive
we are to any TRACE of INSENSITIVITY about the Nazi period!"

	re: -1

	Good point.

    The problem is not whether you were a nazi. The problem is whether
    you've learned your lesson. The current German president, Weizs�cker,
    has been a well-positioned Wehrmacht officer, himself. But look at this
    man and his today's views and compare this with Waldheim's whining
    mediocrity.
    
    Needless to say more.
    
    Angrily yours,
    
    Chris

    
    re 582.17 by LEHKY
    
    Speaking of Weizsacker, is he related to (son of) the
    Weizsacker who was an important dipolmat (foreign
    minister, perhaps?) of the 3rd Riech during (or just
    prior to) WW2 ?