Juergen Moellemann was an anti-Semite and a tax evader. When he started with his anti-Jewish pamphlets his career really took off.

It was over when it was discovered that he financed his anti-Semitic advertisements with illegal monies and when he went a bit too far with the anti-Israel angle where he finally annoyed even the Green party who are usually fine with "legitimate criticism" of Israel.

 

Yes there was enough to keep the death camps going.

Thanks to every single soldier who followed orders and was "not a Nazi", the Nazis had the power to transform Europe into hell for six years.

"He didn't like the government or some of the leaders but he fought bravely and honorably for his country.  Erich Jaeger and many like him deserve to be honored."

That's the point. They don't.

There is no honour in serving evil.

 

It's easy to say that now. In 1945 the allies didn't know how soon the war would be over or how long German terrorists would continue to murder people in Europe.

 

That's true. And the people of Dresden had a choice. The people of London did not.

 

The average Iranian likes Germany because of old ties between the countries. The Iranian regime is a different matter. They like anyone who kills Jews and is willing to trade.

I have some experience with the Kurdish question. Let me just say that according to what I was told I was the only German ever to go to the region around Halapja, look at the gallery of victims (it's in the basement of a former secret police headquarter), and apologise for Germany's role in events.

And I cried.

(I was happy too because I was a Jew walking through the torture chambers of a dead Saddam Hussein.)

Here's the secret police headquarters in Sulimainiya at the Iranian border:

http://gallery.me.com/ajbrehm#100025&bgcolor=black&view=grid

I never uploaded the pictures I took of the gallery of pictures of Halapja. There were too gruesome. But you can find pictures of the same gallery elsewhere on the map.

Yes, we sold Iraq the weapons to murder Kurds and then tried to prevent his overthrow in the name of "peace". Aren't we a bunch of moral examples for the world?

 

 

The bombing continued until the war was over because the war wasn't over!  The Germans were very clever in moving their factories out of the industrial areas and into residentual areas and smaller villages.  The FW 190 production numbers actually increased in 44 and 45 in spite of continued attacks on what the allies thought were the production centers.  Not a justification, just a fact. 

We had a big trial in the US in the 60s to determine if a soldier had a right to disobey an unlawful order.  Until that case was settled, it was a point of LAW in the UCMJ that a soldier followed orders without question.  That in spite of the Nuremberg trials and all that "Following orders" defense.  The court held that soldiers are not required to follow illegal orders, but how many privates or PFCs can figure that out?  Corporal Jaeger did not have the smarts or the power to determine if what he was ordered to do was moral or immoral.  Morality in combat is usually determined by the winners after the fact.  Holding individual soldiers responsible for the evil intent of their leaders just doesn't pass the common sense test.  Individual soldiers who take it upon themselves to commit crimes are criminals.  They should and ususally are dealt with (speaking for USA ONLY here, folks).  There is a huge difference between the SS gefreiter who throws a Russian baby in the air and catches it on his bayonet and a bombadier in the nose of a B-17 placing his load on the designated target.  One only kills one, the other kills hundreds, maybe thousands.  Which is moral?  In a war of conquest, like WWII, the leaders of the agressor nations are the one responsible, the soldiers don't usually have the luxury of picking and choosing which battles they will participate in.  Most of the time they don't even know any more about the battle than what is in front of them.  Hitler staged an attack to look like Poland was attacking Germany, then went in and cleaned house.  The soldiers thought they were protecting the Fatherland.  Prior to that, they had been in Austria and the Sudetenland and annexed other "Germanic" areas of their neighbors'. 

I'll tell you how well informed the average German soldier was, I got in an argument with Herr Jaeger one evening because I mentioned that Rommel had committed suicide.  Erich was furious because he still believed the party line that Rommel had been killed in an air attack.  He wanted to beat on me for besmirching the good name of their hero.  This was twenty two years after the war was over!

Leauki appointed himself expert and conscience of JU on all things pertaining to war and military.  Unfortunately he has also come to believe that he is always right.  He's not.

IMO back door deals carving up someone else's nation (Munich Agreement) is as immoral as annexing the territory yourself. No argument Germany engaged in an immoral war.The West has to admit its complicity in creating the environment that was ripe for a person like Hitler to thrive in. Cause and effect.

Also, I'd say from 1943 onward, German soldiers were fighting for their families and homes. Bombing your loved ones creates a resolve that transcends politics. This is true of any nation not just Germany specifically.

There isn't a nation today that doesn't have some blood on it's hands during its history. The question is how long do you pay for it, one generation, two? The Russians and the Chinese killed more of their own countrymen individually, than Nazi Germany did in comparison (not justifying those events of course). Where is the rage, where are the apologies, where is the 60+ years of guilt. Lets be firm, but lets also be fair.

Oh? What choice did and do all the elederly, woman and children have that die in all wars? Refugees, that fled from the russian advance? And I think Stalin preferred uneducated peasants as Stormtroopers that would be cruel and rape and pillage (maybe I can understand their rage and thirst for revenge, but it doesn't justify what they did either). It wasn't really up to those to stop the war, anyone who even hinted at that was shot without a trial for Vaterlandsverrat. And Hitler would rather see everything destroyed and burned to the ground than give up.. if germany couldn't win the war then his people didn't deserve to survive and should be destroyed was hit motto. Have you seen the movie "Der Untergang"? It is soo spooky and terrifying and baffling to watch

I don't really disagree with you, BFD. But whose fault is it in the end? Hitlers alone? Or the upper echelons of the Wehrmacht who planned the attack on Russia, Poland, helped plan the HOlocaust and murder of the civilian population? I think the plan of the Wehrmacht was to starve the people of Whiterussia, 25 million or so, but that wasn't really doable because people were creative in organizing food. Are those soldiers who knew what they were doing was wrong on some level but did as ordered anyway guilty? Does naivite work as an exculpative argument? Navigating all those arguments without appearing like you are defending Nazicriminals is what makes it difficult and ambiguous. If you are public figure you'd better be advised not to touch that issue with a flagpole because the media will twist everything you say to appear like you are excusing and defending soldiers who did that with their bayonet to the baby.

Möllemann was not an antisemit. All he said was "Ich fürchte, dass kaum jemand den Antisemiten, die es in Deutschland leider gibt und die wir bekämpfen müssen, mehr Zulauf verschafft hat als Herr Scharon und in Deutschland ein Herr Friedman mit seiner intoleranten und gehässigen Art, überheblich. Das geht so nicht, man muss in Deutschland Kritik an der Politik Scharons üben dürfen, ohne in diese Ecke geschoben zu werden" The media twisted it around to make it look like Möllemann accused the Jews for it being their own fault that  antisemitsm existed and started a campaign against Möllemann that drove him into suicide. And Michel Friedmann was an arrogant jewish bastard  that loved to riddicule others but whom noone could critize without being called an antisemit. That is also Germany.

The holocaust became constitutive of a new geopolitical global order, WW2 determined who would be in the permanent security council of the UN for example, and the cold war did the rest. It has become a mantra of western democratic nations to condemn the holocaust, and those who don't toe that line are not invited in or cast out. That is why it won't be forgotten and moved on beyond it. The other massmurders did not have the same consequence for global politics and that is why they are not treated the same way. Plus, a strong Germany is still seen as a threat by some, so it is also a easy tool to remind Germans of their place by bringing it up.

The people of Germany could have stopped Hitler.

 

Yes, he was.

 

I see.

Anyone still surprised why left Germany?

Moelleman was great in blaming Jews for anti-Semitism "they caused". It's not exactly a miracle that the "Jewish bastard" had a problem with that.

Moelleman's protegee Karsli compared Israel with Nazi Germany and accused Ariel Sharon of executing a genocidal war. I assume there is nothing anti-Semitic about comparing Israel with, of all evil dictatorships, the Nazis? I.e. it was coincidence and he could just well have chosen any other dictatorship with no specific meaning to Jews? And accusing someone of genocide just because he is an Israeli is not anti-Semitic at all?

 

 

Don't be so selfrighteous. It is really easy to say "they should have done something and because they didn't they deserve everything they got". My dad was born in 1940, did he deserve to be killed while being on the run from the Russians because he didn't stop Hitler?

And why can't I call Friedmann a jewish bastard? He IS! oh because I am german and therefore it makes me an antisemit, I have to say that he is a bastard who happens to be jewish by chance. I am so happy the world was able to just what sort of person he was when the whole thing with the call girls and cocaine came out.

I really really don't like Michel Friedmann. He used his being jewish as a shield and/or free pass to attack others because nobody could say anything without being called a Nazi.

And incidentally, I personally know a few jews who happen to be really arrogant lol, friends of my brother, they're all russian musicians from St. Petersburg. I really don't have anything against other cultures or ethnicities, Iam not 100% german myself.

Möllemann was just an example to show the inner workings of german media and policy making. I disagree with you, I think he was made into something worse in public perception than he actually was.

You think it's easy to say that?

I have lived in Germany. I know how "easy" it is to say something like that, to say that Germans could have stopped Hitler. If you want self-righteous, look at the Germans who feel completely innocent because they don't believe that they had a responsibility to stop their government from attacking random countries and murdering millions of people.

 

I still don't see what his being Jewish has to do with your opinion of him, unless that makes sense to you. Do you see a connection between his nationality and his behaviour? I don't.

 

Right. Yet it is you who brings up his nationality and all the Nazi stuff, not me.

What YOU think is happening is that you innocently criticise Michel Friedman, and somebody else, probably I, jump on it and call you an anti-Semite for it.

But what really happened was that you brought up his Jewish nationality and made the connection to anti-Semitism.

You don't even realise, like many others in Germany, that it isn't one's opinion of Michel Friedman that is problematic. It's the apparent need to point out that he is Jewish and using that as an attack mechanism.

I don't think you realise what the problem with anti-Semitism is. Very few people get beaten up or have been killed because some idiot believes that a random TV host is a bastard. But wars have been fought over people's belief in "Jewish bastards".

 

So? What's that got do with anything? I know arrogant Jews too. How does that relate to our discussion?

 

He gained votes using anti-Semitism. That was the public perception. More people voted for him.

Anybody who looks at a map of the middle east, and then chooses the SMALLEST conflict there with the FEWEST deaths as an example of a war of extermination just because the conflict involves Israel is certainly not free from prejudice.

Those words were not chosen randomly by neutral observers.

Comparing Israel with Nazi Germany and its reaction to attacks with a war of extermination is dome very specifically because Israel is Jewish. The Nazi imagery is used because of the Holocaust. If you think that those comparisons are done for any reason other than the fact that Israel is Jewish, you are incredibly naive.

Nobody in the "not anti-Semitic" crowd ever compares Israel to North-Vietnam or the Khmer Rouge. It's not like this world has a lack of evil dictatorships one can use for the purpose of comparison. No, these comparisons are done BECAUSE of their specific meaning with regards to Jews. And that is anti-Semitism.

And the only thing that makes a few thousands deaths caused in defensive wars at all equivalent to 50 million victims of pure aggression in the minds of people like Moelleman and Karsli is the fact that Israel is Jewish.

Moellemann is dead but Karsli is still alive. When the Lebanese army killed hundreds of "Palestinians" in 2007 while fighting the terrorist group "Fatah al-Islam", did the non-anti-Semite Karsli call that a "war of extermination" or did he compare Lebanon with Nazi Germany? Why not? What was missing? I assume that for a non-anti-Semite like Karsli the fact that Lebanon wasn't Jewish wouldn't make a difference? And there is a battle with the same number of casualties, so what is preventing the comparison?

 

I have yet to meet anyone who thinks like that, and all those who were old enough to have made a choice are dying of old age or are already dead.  The young generation today has a dangerous tendency to pretend like they have no repsonsibilty to the past because they weren't alive back then. That is something that has to be fought and the naziregime and ww2 are on the school curriculum almost every other year all through school.

It was Friedmann himself who made being jewish an issue, otherwise I wouldn't care at all. But he did and used it like a weapon and THAT is what I criticized. If one said something critical about him he would act like him being jewish was the reason for the criticism and called you a antisemite. It is almost like being jewish in Germany makes you untouchable to criticism because everything you say can be interpreted as being antisemitic. That is what being jewish has to do with it in that context. 

It doesn't, sorry.

 

Der Untergang - Downfall trailer - It is really worth watching.

Oh, please. Michel Friedman was then the vice president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. It was in that capacity that he reacted to Karsli's and then Moellemann's anti-Semitic propaganda. And you accuse Friedman of making "being Jewish" the issue???

Being Jewish in Germany makes one untouchable? That's a typical defence of the anti-Semite. In reality a supporter of Israel cannot even hang an Israeli flag in his window without the police breaking into the flat and taking it down.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,601122,00.html

Do you think the terrorist supporters are as touchable? Do police stop them from demonstrating in the streets because it bothers Jews? Do police remove Arab nationalist flags because of Jews?

No, my friend. If a German politician makes anti-Semitic remarks (and that is what comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is, as I explained above), and the vice president of the Jewish Council speaks up against it, the vice president's "being Jewish" is already the issue, due to the anti-Semites, not due to him.

You act as if Friedman simply attacked the poor Mr Moellemann and then used his Jewishness as a shield, which presumably miraculously shields him from criticism. (As if pamphlets like the ones Moellemann distributed were normal for other nationalities and only Jews are shielded against them...)

I can tell you from my own experience that the shield you see doesn't work. People in Germany feel free to criticise Israel, compare it to Nazi Germany, vilify Israel and Jews (and the "Zionist lobby") and there is no shield whatsoever. In fact it just gets you votes if you do it.

Just put on a kippa and walk through certain streets in Germany where people live who believe the nonsense Moellemann said and you will see how well-protected Jews are in Germany and how non-anti-Semitic those are who agree with Moellemann's criticism. Good luck!

Yes, synagogues in Germany have constant police protection. And that is a "special shield" if you so will. But if I were you and lived in Germany (I think you don't), I would worry about why Jews need a shield and not complain that they appear to have one.

 

 

And yet you didn't see how the people of Dresden had a choice.

 

Put like that it seemed racist by me.. appologies. But he is still a slimy git.
I didn't want to imply that being Jewish makes you untouchable, I meant it only in the context of politics. The rest of it you are unfortunately right, and I didn't want to downplay it at all.

 

One has to be extracareful when criticizing anything to do with Isreal at all in Germany because if you are polemic you sound like a racist pig.

I am not a racist in anyway myself, even if I defend Möllemann because I think the media went on a crusade against him and destroyed him and don't like Friedmann because he was an selfrighteous arrogant ass.

Now I had to justify myself to you for criticing anything at all, see how that works? lol Bleh, it is easier to just keep your mouth shut because whatever critical you say you'll be invariably in the corner with racists and neonazis or downplaing the holocaust etc. or hating Israels and having sympathy with the poor defenseles Palestinians. There seems to be only a with me or against me attitude going around in this context. And where is it in Stein gemeißelt that Israelis are incapable of racism themselves?

"Poor defenceless Palestinians", I love that image.

I have met poor defenceless people. One thing they usually have in common is that they do, in fact, have no weapons and do not, usually, call for genocide.

Where does it say that Israelis must be racists? In the case of Israel it's often enough simply to state that they do not necessarily have to be the good guys and suddenly they are the bad guys.

But you can try it out.

Dress up as an Arab and walk through a typical Israeli city. Try the same thing dressed up as a Jew in an Arab city. I think you will find out what racism is and whether Israelis are very capable of it.

Believing that Israeli can be racists is not enough. You will have to find out. Otherwise you have no point. There mere capability of imagining Israeli racism is no argument for or against anything. I can imagine that the Pope is secretly a Protestant, but that doesn't mean that he is or that we should take the possibility into account when discussing Papal decisions.

 

No, you had to justify why your "criticism" of people had so much to do with their Jewishness.

If I find a TV host annoying I would not typically mention his nationality, especially not if he is of a people who are constantly attacked by people worldwide who are already prejudiced against that nation.

And if I tried to find an example of where political correctness goes to far I would not choose a politician who compares Israel with Nazi-Germany just because it's Jewish.

Again, the comparison was no accident. And a non-Jewish country is not usually compared with Nazi-Germany just because it is involved in a war that kills a few hundred people.

If in some region in North-America violence was ripe and hundreds of thousands would die in civil wars and terror attacks and ALL the inhabitants in the region where white except in the one town where violence levels are lower by a factor of 100, and somebody would compare exactly that town with the Ku-Klux-Klan; would you not assume that

a ) the person making the comparison did not choose the Ku-Klux-Klan comparison by coincidence

b ) the person making the comparison ignored all the violence and instead focused on the most peaceful town for a reason

c ) the person is indeed most probably a racist bigot and that that explains not only why he picks on the one black town (for no violence-related reason) and chose the Ku-Klux-Klan for the comparison specifically BECAUSE of its relevance to anti-black racism?

If you believe that someone who is not an anti-Semite but merely worried about violence, would pick Israel as his target just out of coincidence, despite the fact that Israel is only ONE SIDE in the LEAST VIOLENT CONFLICT of the region, you are incredibly naive.

And if you believe that this person would then compare Israel with Nazi-Germany (and not with North-Vietnam or any other evil power), also out of coincidence, and not because of the fact that Israel is specifically a Jewish state, you live in a fantasy world.

And if finally you think that the fact that so many people do exactly that while ignoring the Algerian Civil War or the war in Darfur can in any way be reconciled with an alleged political untouchability of Jews in Germany, you are an idiot.

A non-anti-Semite would see no particular reason to choose the Arab-Israeli conflict over the Arab-African conflict (in Darfur), the Algerian Civil War, the Arab-Kurdish conflict, the Arab-Assyrian conflict, the Arab-Aramaean conflict, the Arab-Somali conflict; certainly not if his interest in the matter had to do with the actual violence and innocent deaths caused by the conflict.

And a non-anti-Semite would not compare Israel exactly to those people who wanted to exterminate all Jews and who, coincidentally, where during World War 2 the allies of the groups that became the PLO. Anyone who makes that comparison is either downplaying the crimes of the Nazis (who did NOT kill a few thousand Poles and Jews while defending Germany against a a genocide announced by Poland), or is somehow thinking that a few thousand victims killed by _Jews_ are somehow as bad as millions killed by non-Jews and that Jews are morally lower than others to begin with and have hence to commit smaller crimes to qualify for the Nazi-of-the-year award.

If you have sympathy with the "death to all Jews" crowd, that's your business. But don't go around claiming that despite the fact that Israel is CONSTANTLY criticised in Germany by almost everyone (whereas Israel's enemies are under no such scrutiny or can you even remember a demonstration against the Algerian Civil War?) Jews and Israel have some sort of shield in place which forces you to keep your mouth shut.

If you compare Israel with Nazi-Germany or defend politicians who do that you are downplaying the Holocaust. If you don't realise that a few thousand Arabs killed when THEY attacked Israel is not morally the same as the murder of six million people because they were Jewish, gay, or Roma, I cannot help you.

_IF_ the Holocaust had been about the killing of a few thousands Jews who tried to throw the Germans into the sea, we wouldn't even use it as an example of evil.

 

 

 

...