The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
In fact you did more than that: you effectively accused all Europeans of Holocaust denial. That's the meaning of what you wrote.
You wrote that we Europeans "live in the world that they made", to counter my argument that we live in a world that was remade after them, in reaction to them. That's what I term a demial of post-war history.
I find that wording evasive as well as historically inaccurate.
Why? What you said qualified all Germans then (that's 70 million people) an now (because of the lack of temporal distinction) as killers. (Not merely as part responsible by association or benefit, not merely as "bearing the mark of cain" - heh, whatever that means -, but killers.) The actual killers with German citizenship were a fraction of that, hardly historically precise. To boot, you are leaving out the non-German helpers in killing of the Nazi regime across Europe, be it the SS legions from the Baltic states, Vichy France, or the state machinery of the Horthy regime here in Hungary and the succeeding Arrowcrossers. Even less historically precise.
standard English usage, everyone knows what it means
...is no argument for anything. (It's the logical fallacy called "Argumentum ad populum".)
As I said, someone who insists that we say "The US Army fired white phosphorous" in place of "The Americans fired white phosphorous" is demanding less accuracy, not more.
No. You said "Republicans", not "US Army"; and if you said the above, I find it very ridiculous. One can blame "Americans" for failing to not elect/elect off the imperial regime and/or not block it with civic resistance, but "The Americans fired white phosphorous" has nothing to do with precision. At this point, I must ask: do you approve of the concept of collective guilt?
insist that I use euphemisms
That you consider these euphemisms only proves that you are incapable of seeing distinctions.
as it is well known, many members of the Nazi legal and academic system transitioned seamlessly to the post-war state
Yep. The '68 movement grew in large part on a movement from the fifties to expose and push these people from positions of power.
the Baader-Meinhof period rebellion
What is the "Baader-Meinhof period"? Is that how you call 1968 and what followed, or the era of the first generation of the Red Army Faction, or the time until the suicides in prison, or the seventies?...
It is true that the RAF grew from the 1968 movement, and that they used to accuse those in power of being crypto-Nazis (even if they weren't), it is not true however that the Nazi holdovers remained in power without disturbance.
I find efforts to pretend otherwise
Again with the insinuations. What exactly is your point here? Is it that modern Germany is a continuation of the Third Reich, with cosmetic changes?
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 24 1 comment
by Oui - Sep 19 18 comments
by Oui - Sep 13 31 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 11 5 comments
by Cat - Sep 13 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 2 2 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 241 comment
by Oui - Sep 1918 comments
by gmoke - Sep 173 comments
by Oui - Sep 153 comments
by Oui - Sep 15
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Oui - Sep 1331 comments
by Cat - Sep 139 comments
by Oui - Sep 123 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 115 comments
by Oui - Sep 929 comments
by Oui - Sep 713 comments
by Oui - Sep 61 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 22 comments
by gmoke - Sep 2
by Oui - Sep 1167 comments
by Oui - Aug 315 comments
by gmoke - Aug 302 comments
by Oui - Aug 304 comments
by Oui - Aug 3010 comments