Modern Germany and WW2

[andrewg]

I am an ardent reader of history. I enjoy learning about the past and how we've arrived at what is today, our modern culture.
One of my big areas of interest has always been World War Two. Specifically I've always been fascinated about the rise to power of Germany after WW1 and how the Third Reich came about. I realize that we all know the general history of that period....including the leader, who many consider one of the most evil men of the twentieth century. My question is about Germany since the war and why it has so dramatically tried to erase the history of that time. I am fascinated by buildings and places still surviving from that time period and greatly desire someday to visit them. My concern is that any existing building or significant place of importance from the Reich period is in great danger of being destroyed (if it hasn't already been since the end of the war). Why does Germany see destroying historic sites and structures as so important? Are they ashamed or fearful? From what I understand even symbols of that era and a particular book are illegal. It seems odd to me that to try to erase or eradicate all traces of history is really an intelligent thing to do. I often visit this site http://www.thirdreichruins.com/ to look at fascinating places from that time period. They have updates regularly about various places of interest....but sadly, many times they report that the buildings or remains of these buildings have been bulldozed over. It's just very odd and almost sad that history (good or bad) is discarded in this way. Even the graves of certain well known historical figures have been hidden or removed. Strange.
I don't want this thread to become some statement about politics....it is not. It is in regard to history. Ideally I would like some folks from Germany or that may have real answers as to why this policy of erasing history is still going on.

 

[Trajan]

It isn't that strange when you consider the anti-Nazi laws in Germany.

It isn't that Germany wants to forget it's Nazi past so much as they don't want the veneration of it. They don't want shrines for Nazisim.

For example: http://www.newser.com/story/84974/german-chapel-becomes-neo-nazi-shrine.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...es-2318497.html

 

[OVERKILL]

When you have been portrayed as the root of all evil in modern media as much as the Germans have, I think it makes perfect sense for them to try and limit their own exposure to their past. A history of genocide and an attempt at world domination certainly don't give them a positive reputation.

It is the outside views of Germany and that time period that has directly driven to control that exposure, and yes, to an extent, embarrassment of that era, that has yielded exactly what you are saying: A control, and in many cases, the elimination of much of the Nazi-era material. This includes buildings.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
It isn't that strange when you consider the anti-Nazi laws in Germany.

It isn't that Germany wants to forget it's Nazi past so much as they don't want the veneration of it. They don't want shrines for Nazisim.

For example: http://www.newser.com/story/84974/german-chapel-becomes-neo-nazi-shrine.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...es-2318497.html

We don't do that here in the U.S. (squash nutty groups from existing as long as they don't harm others). Destroying buildings and moving graves just seems a bit extreme because some odd groups want to venerate these places. Are they in fear of the whole cycle starting over again or something? That seems highly unlikely. Desecrating a grave or bulldozing historic locations just doesn't sit right from a historical perspective to me. Just imagine if this was done as completely as post war Germany has done....but all through history. There would be almost nothing left to study, interpret, or examine from all of human history.

 

[SuperDave456]

The Germans teach about it in their schools.

The Japanese, however, have banned it from their schools. Re-written their history books, and are shocked when they come overseas and learn that their country wholeheartedly participated in mass murder/genocide.

The German laws exist because they are tired of dealing with nut jobs.
The Japanese laws exist out of arrogance and ignorance.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
When you have been portrayed as the root of all evil in modern media as much as the Germans have, I think it makes perfect sense for them to try and limit their own exposure to their past. A history of genocide and an attempt at world domination certainly don't give them a positive reputation.

It is the outside views of Germany and that time period that has directly driven to control that exposure, and yes, to an extent, embarrassment of that era, that has yielded exactly what you are saying: A control, and in many cases, the elimination of much of the Nazi-era material. This includes buildings.

I understand a little bit....but still don't grasp that it is necessary. It's rather intellectually void of real reason. There is and will always be an interest in that time period. Rightly so. It was a very world-shaping event that effects us still today. It will always puzzle me how anybody can think a building, a symbol, or a location of historic value and interest can or will harm anyone.

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: SuperDave456
The Germans teach about it in their schools.

The Japanese, however, have banned it from their schools. Re-written their history books, and are shocked when they come overseas and learn that their country wholeheartedly participated in mass murder/genocide.

The German laws exist because they are tired of dealing with nut jobs.
The Japanese laws exist out of arrogance and ignorance.


I would say that preserving historical buildings is more important than worrying about nut jobs placing a few flowers at these places. There will always be nutty people....but there wont always be historic sites available.

 

[SaturnIonVue]

I think Trajan hit the nail on the head. Germany has had a lot shame to live down since 1945, and I don't blame them for not wanting to be reminded so much of that era. Neo-Nazi groups pop up here and there and veneration of that era should be avoided. I was amazed many decades ago to learn that even though Germany kept the music to their national anthem it was/still is illegal to sing the original words used in the Nazi era. I wasn't aware the wording was so different. I've read those lyrics and it is easy to see why they are illegal--"All for Germany" is still pretty inflamatory.

I remember when President Reagan visited a cemetery in Germany for a ceremony, the name of which escapes me (Bitsburg?), but it became a huge uproar since a large number of SS men were also buried there and even though he didn't go to the area of the cemetery where they were buried, or do anything to honor them, the controversy raged for weeks!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
When you have been portrayed as the root of all evil in modern media as much as the Germans have, I think it makes perfect sense for them to try and limit their own exposure to their past. A history of genocide and an attempt at world domination certainly don't give them a positive reputation.

It is the outside views of Germany and that time period that has directly driven to control that exposure, and yes, to an extent, embarrassment of that era, that has yielded exactly what you are saying: A control, and in many cases, the elimination of much of the Nazi-era material. This includes buildings.

I understand a little bit....but still don't grasp that it is necessary. It's rather intellectually void of real reason. There is and will always be an interest in that time period. Rightly so. It was a very world-shaping event that effects us still today. It will always puzzle me how anybody can think a building, a symbol, or a location of historic value and interest can or will harm anyone.


It isn't void of intellectual reason at all. When you have a topic as polarized as the Nazi's, as well as the nutters out there who wish to recreate it, the media who has historically mis-portrayed it....etc, there are plenty of reasons to do what they are doing.

It isn't like they are sweeping that whole period under the rug. They are limiting exposure and for a host of reasons.

 

[Doog]

Andrew there are some really good WWII documentaries on Direct TV Military Channel and History Channel. I watch them 2-3 times a week while exercising. Really good films from that period.

 

[skyship]

Interesting discussion and as a Brit living in Germany I would like to point out to the US readers not familiar with the statistics of WW2, that the US was not involved to any major extent in combat ops in the EU (Hollywood was!).
The Russians lost 20 million people, about 10 million red army and the rest civilians.
The Germans lost 10 million folks, about 7 million servicemen and the rest civilians.
The USA lost 276,000 (I forget the exact figure) in combat and 143,000 servicemen in non combat accidents, POW or illness etc. More US Army troops were killed in Jeep roll overs, flying accidents and friendly fire accidents than the Germans shot.

WW2 was a real horror story in mainland Europe and the new generation want to forget what the old one did, although oddly enough the Germans are still concerned that their right wingers will rise again in a different form and attack other citizens living or working in Germany if the economy declines in a significant way.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: Trajan
It isn't that strange when you consider the anti-Nazi laws in Germany.

It isn't that Germany wants to forget it's Nazi past so much as they don't want the veneration of it. They don't want shrines for Nazisim.

For example: http://www.newser.com/story/84974/german-chapel-becomes-neo-nazi-shrine.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...es-2318497.html

We don't do that here in the U.S. (squash nutty groups from existing as long as they don't harm others). Destroying buildings and moving graves just seems a bit extreme because some odd groups want to venerate these places. Are they in fear of the whole cycle starting over again or something? That seems highly unlikely. Desecrating a grave or bulldozing historic locations just doesn't sit right from a historical perspective to me. Just imagine if this was done as completely as post war Germany has done....but all through history. There would be almost nothing left to study, interpret, or examine from all of human history.


No we don't. But we've never in our history had anything close to Nazisim, launched a world war, or set out an organized extermination policy. We also don't arrest Holocaust deniers as they do in some European countries either.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: SaturnIonVue


I remember when President Reagan visited a cemetery in Germany for a ceremony, the name of which escapes me (Bitsburg?), but it became a huge uproar since a large number of SS men were also buried there and even though he didn't go to the area of the cemetery where they were buried, or do anything to honor them, the controversy raged for weeks!


Even spawned a song: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Brain_Is_Hanging_Upside_Down_(Bonzo_Goes_to_Bitburg)

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: skyship
Interesting discussion and as a Brit living in Germany I would like to point out to the US readers not familiar with the statistics of WW2, that the US was not involved to any major extent in combat ops in the EU (Hollywood was!).



Yeah the invasion of Normandy, the whole liberation of France thing, the drive to the Elbe were all minor sideshows.

 

[mpvue]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: skyship
Interesting discussion and as a Brit living in Germany I would like to point out to the US readers not familiar with the statistics of WW2, that the US was not involved to any major extent in combat ops in the EU (Hollywood was!).

Yeah the invasion of Normandy, the whole liberation of France thing, the drive to the Elbe were all minor sideshows.

well this makes sense since the US didn't get pulled in until '41, while the war officially started in '39 (though Germany had already invaded and taken over other nations before that, and had concentration camps since the early '30's)

 

[mpvue]

I visited Ukraine, Poland and Germany back in '93. Ukraine will show you the valley where thousands of people were forced into and shot mass execution style.
Poland will show you the Old City that was obliterated by the Germans, who systematically bombed and dynamited the city block by block. then they will show you how they rebuilt the old buildings using smuggled original blueprints, financed privately in the '70's and '80's.
then we got to Germany... no mention of the history, no tours of historical sites, just a tour of the Rhine and show us some old castles.

of course, I wouldn't have been very popular in WWII Germany (if I was alive back then); I'm Polish, married to a black woman, and a member of a certain group that was interred in the camps...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: skyship
Interesting discussion and as a Brit living in Germany I would like to point out to the US readers not familiar with the statistics of WW2, that the US was not involved to any major extent in combat ops in the EU (Hollywood was!).



Yeah the invasion of Normandy, the whole liberation of France thing, the drive to the Elbe were all minor sideshows.

Had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbour, do you think the US would have gotten involved?

There certainly were some rather significant battles before the US was ever involved in WWII. The battle of Kiev comes to mind, where the Germans slaughtered some 616,304 Soviets. In contrast, the US lost 125,847 in the entire Normandy campaign.

EDIT:

My attempt is not to downplay the efforts of the US and Canadian forces during the war. My Grandfather fought as did my grandmother's brothers. I'm simply trying to illustrate that there were other significant battles, MANY significant battles, that occurred and many, MANY lives were lost, long before the US was involved in the war to any great degree.

It is not often depicted in that manner. While the Japanese work to pretend it never happened, the "Americanized" versions of the story tend to make it sound like they just came in and cleaned house all by themselves, when this was clearly not the case.

 

[Y_K]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Yeah the invasion of Normandy, the whole liberation of France thing, the drive to the Elbe were all minor sideshows.

June 6, 1944 is nearly 3 years after Russian start on June 22, 1941 and Czech+Polish catastrophe in 1939. That's your invasion of Normandy. It would never happened without Sir Winston Churchill. Thanks to him Americans saved half of Europe from Soviets. Otherwise, Russians would finish the Reich on their own. It was time to cut the pie and it was a Good Thing. But Americans did not have much to show on the ground, they bomb well though.
In Iraq/Afghanistan we have a similar story: superb bombing and pathetic ground operations. When they descend from the sky Americans start building power plants, hospitals, schools and drill water wells.
In Yugoslavia we bombed poorly and lost an invincible stealth craft.
Pacific campaign was nothing short of a feat.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbour, do you think the US would have gotten involved?

There certainly were some rather significant battles before the US was ever involved in WWII. The battle of Kiev comes to mind, where the Germans slaughtered some 616,304 Soviets. In contrast, the US lost 125,847 in the entire Normandy campaign.


I think it was inevitable. I doubt many more Greer/Reuben James/Kearny/SS Robin Moor incidents would of been tolerated.

Pearl Harbor though didn't drag us into WW2. Hitler's declaration of war, (For prestige, as the terms of the pact with Japan did not require it.) is what did it.

But if we're going to compare battles such as Kiev, Vyzama, Kharkov in 42, etc to US involvement, then the same could be said about Poland, 1940 in the West, the Balkins 1941, the whole Africa/Italy campaign.

We're getting off the thread subject

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Y_K
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Yeah the invasion of Normandy, the whole liberation of France thing, the drive to the Elbe were all minor sideshows.

June 6, 1944 is nearly 3 years after Russian start on June 22, 1941 and Czech+Polish catastrophe in 1939. That's your invasion of Normandy. It would never happened without Sir Winston Churchill. Thanks to him Americans saved half of Europe from Soviets. Otherwise, Russians would finish the Reich on their own. It was time to cut the pie and it was a Good Thing. But Americans did not have much to show on the ground, they bomb well though.
In Iraq/Afghanistan we have a similar story: superb bombing and pathetic ground operations. When they descend from the sky Americans start building power plants, hospitals, schools and drill water wells.
In Yugoslavia we bombed poorly and lost an invincible stealth craft.
Pacific campaign was nothing short of a feat.


Why would anyone thank Churchill for something America did? And what does Iraq/Afghanistan have to do with WW2? Or nazi veneration?