NationStates Jolt Archive

I've just been musing a few things about German and European history. The rise of the Nazi movement was hardly inevitable, and was essentially the result of a certain set of historical events and trends, ie, the perceptions of the Treaty of Versailles, economic chaos in Germany, the lack of vitality in the Weimar democracy, etc.

But when I think about it, and this is more an opinion than anything, I keep thinking about Imperial Germany and how Imperial Germany did or didn't provide a background for the Nazi movement. Most promeniently, I think about the cult of personality, which was a major part of Hitler's success in Germany.

Kaiser Wilhem II was in this respect a sort of forerunner of Hitler, it seems. Vain, shallow and theatrical in the extreme, one of the few things he did consistently was develop a sense of quasi-mystical nationalism. Sound familiar ... it kind of does to me. The Nazi movement, for all its horrors, found a lot of its appeal (in my opinion) in the presentation of a romantic notion of German destiny. Wilhem's Weltpolitik inspired much of the same feelings.

This is not to say that the last ruling Hohenzollern was entirely like Hitler. He lacked the nerve (although it sounds too positive to use for Hitler), and of course, did not construct a vast police state apparatus. However, the Imperial German political system was not really democratic, he viewed himself as a monarch with divine right. One could argue that along with personal differences, one of the main differences was that the Kaiser was very much indebted to Protestantism, whereas Hitler hated Christianity and wanted to eventually exterminate it.

Hitler played on perverted notions of certain streams of German history, especially the concept of eastward expansion (a historical fact with mixed consequences) and of romantic nationalism (relatively recent). These are also concepts that the last Kaiser, or Ludendorff/Hindenburg played around with.

One of the tragedies of Imperial Germany, however, was that it never really got to develop fully. Perhaps, with a better, more pragmatic ruler, it could have developed more fully democratic institutions. Such a Germany would have been an incredibly dynamic force. Germany is positioned, both geographically, materially and socially, to be the engine of Europe.

I think a lot of the old attraction to eastward expansion might have to do with the fact that the Germans had (and have) elements of both East and West Europe in them. Nearly a quarter of Germans have large elements of Slavonic roots, and historically, large German populations existed (often in surprising harmony) as far east as the Volga River.

Fundamentally, I think the German story of the 20th century is one of the greatest tragedies in European, and indeed, world history. Today, Germany is a prosperous nation, one of the wealthiest in the world, but it is (probably) only a part of what it could have ... almost should have been.

If all this seems really pro-German, then, yes, I am pro German. I admire German culture, and I happen to be of German descent. I am also aware of the horrific crimes that have been committed by Germans (although not the German people ... they were victims and victimizers both) in the course of the century.

I've got a little off track ... so I'm just going to post this, musing, I suppose on Germany and its past and wait for the flaming to happen.

Agreed. It is a tragedy that the potential of Imperial Germany was lost in WWI, and that the Nazis forever tarnished the image of the German people.

No flaming from me. I agree entirely. Dresden, where I live, was founded by slavonic tribes in 1206.


First traces of settlements in the area of the Elbe valley go back to the neolithic period. In the 6th century BC Germanic settlers reached the Elbe lowlands and settled temporarily. However, the majority of them left this area one millennium later and so Slavonic tribes took possession of this land peacefully. The Slavonic settlement Drezdany, situated at the place of the present Frauenkirche forms the origins of Dresden's name. Also, the marking of some quarters in Dresden, such as Zschertnitz or Gompitz hark back to its Slavonic roots.

http://dresdenga.ags.myareaguide.com/

and that the Nazis forever tarnished the image of the German people.
They did not. I don't feel tarnished at all. Instead I am annoyed by the constant harping on it. All big nations of the world had some tragedy in their history and comited some genocide somewhere. The nazi regime does not constitute an exception and is Germany's tragedy. Still it is, compared to some other genocides in human history, not the largest tragedy of mankind.

It's impossible to say, but I think it's safe to say, that if it was allowed to fully realize itself (Germany was still growing fairly rapidly when WWII started), that Imperial Germany would have occupied a role in the global economy at LEAST as promenient as Japan is today. Germany was second only to the United States, and was just as successful in many industries. Particularly, it led the world in chemical and electric industries.

Also, Bismarck's foreign policy revolved around the Three Emperor's pact, that is, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Germany. If that had been allowed to stand, Germany would have played a major role in developing both of these areas. Imperial Russia was the other empire of the time with gigantic potential that was never realized.

Furthermore, had the Three Emperor's Pact been maintained, I doubt Germany would have lost World War I, among other things.

They did not. I don't feel tarnished at all. Instead I am annoyed by the constant harping on it. All big nations of the world had some tragedy in their history and comited some genocide somewhere. The nazi regime does not constitute an exception and is Germany's tragedy. Still it is, compared to some other genocides in human history, not the largest tragedy of mankind.

I am sorry if you felt I was speaking for you. I just meant that it is unfortunate that the Nazi legacy will always be the thing foreigners most remember Germany for, which considering the rich heritage of German culture, is quite regrettable.

Gigatron,

We could debate whether Germany's image SHOULD be tarnished or not, but the fact that it was and still is. I have a very avid interest in German history, particularly in the Imperial period. I've had people tell me I shouldn't, because people will think I'm a Nazi. The misconception of German = Nazi during WWII is widespread. And Germany is still a distrusted nation.

I don't think it's fair to people 60 years after the fact, but I can't really say that it's something that hasn't happened. I will say, however, that regardless of any flaws in modern Germany, the Germans have done a much better job of coming to terms with their history than, say, the Japanese, who still pretty much deny their war atrocities.

Note- I have nothing against the Japanese, but the Japanese army did horrific things in the territories they conquered. For that matter, the Allied armies have their atrocities. And we could talk for years about the Soviets ...

Agreed. It is a tragedy that the potential of Imperial Germany was lost in WWI, and that the Nazis forever tarnished the image of the German people.
It tarnished the image of Germany: well for at least the next two thousand years. In that sense following another logic.
Japans image is also going to be that way for a very long time.
Regardless of what Japan or Germany may do.

They did not. I don't feel tarnished at all. Instead I am annoyed by the constant harping on it. All big nations of the world had some tragedy in their history and comited some genocide somewhere.
Though causing a World War which caused (including the genocide and the mass killings) around 37 million deaths in Europe is a thing which no one except Japan can even slightly compete with.

Though causing a World War which caused (including the genocide and the mass killings) around 37 million deaths in Europe is a thing which no one except Japan can even slightly compete with.
It is speculated that Stalin during his reign, killed some 50 million Russians. How many Indians the Americans killed is unknown I guess, but it has got to be in the millions too. How many Aboriginees the Australians killed is probably unknown aswell. Genocides happen. Whether 37 million or 50 or just 1 million is irrelevant. World War 1 and 2 were great tragedies for Europe which cost millions of lives for a few egomaniac leaders who sacrificed the people they ruled over for nothing. Attributing either world war to Germany alone is not correct because both wars had historic circumstances preceeding them which made them possible and World Wars, by definition, need more than just one country to war with.

It's impossible to say, but I think it's safe to say, that if it was allowed to fully realize itself (Germany was still growing fairly rapidly when WWII started), that Imperial Germany would have occupied a role in the global economy at LEAST as promenient as Japan is today. Germany was second only to the United States, and was just as successful in many industries. Particularly, it led the world in chemical and electric industries. .
Germany is today already on place three today. More is not possible.

Also, Bismarck's foreign policy revolved around the Three Emperor's pact, that is, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Germany. If that had been allowed to stand, Germany would have played a major role in developing both of these areas. Imperial Russia was the other empire of the time with gigantic potential that was never realized.
Furthermore, had the Three Emperor's Pact been maintained, I doubt Germany would have lost World War I, among other things.
I agree with many of your positive statements about Bismarck.
However I see one fundamental problem in the failure of the 1848/49 revolution. That led the way for a backlash of the democratic development. Bismarck was at the end (1866) able to divide the liberals in Prussia into the National liberals and the progressive liberals. The national liberals saw the unifitcation as the main priority and the progressive democratic reforms.
The national liberals had strong nationalists tendencies which grew over the time. The idea that unity is more important than freedom - after the long-time of divisions since the reformation and the 30-year war (1618-48) led to a very fierce nationalism. And that led also to an agressive policy in the Wilhelminists era (in German ways the world should be saved).
The nazis were of course the most extreme ideology. First of all,they were fiercely racists (völkisch) and expansionists. And totalitarian: "You are nothing, your people are everything."

I think the mass killings are more important than the war in terms of measuring German guilt. Nations start wars for all sorts of reasons, honorable or dishonorable. The pecuiliarity of Hitler lay in what he tended to do with the conquered, particularly if they happened to be Slavic or Jewish.

As far as the tolls for straight-out mass murder, rather than the horrors of war in general ... this is an estimate, so corrections are welcome. But I think I'm mostly right.

Nazi Holocaust- 10-12 million total, about 5-5.5 million of which were Jews. Could be somewhat higher, depending how you count Soviet civilian losses.
Japanese Democides- don't have good numbers, am going to guess about 10 million, most of whom were Chinese
Stalinist Democides- 20 million (approximately)
Maoist Democides- 20-40 million (approximately)
King Leopold's Congo Free State- approximately 10 million

Conclusion- the twentieth century was a horrible time.

World War 1 and 2 were great tragedies for Europe which cost millions of lives for a few egomaniac leaders who sacrificed the people they ruled over for nothing. Attributing either world war to Germany alone is not correct because both wars had historic circumstances preceeding them which made them possible and World Wars, by definition, need more than just one country to war with.
I don´t know where you get your information wrong and what you have learned. But WW II was clearly caused by Germany. It was a war of agression. Get yourself informed.
Regarding the Soviet Union: as far as I know the highest estimates for Soviet Russia are 20 million deaths due to the regime. The other number may be the one for China actually.

Nazi Holocaust- 10-12 million total, about 5-5.5 million of which were Jews. Could be somewhat higher, depending how you count Soviet civilian losses.
Japanese Democides- don't have good numbers, am going to guess about 10 million, most of whom were Chinese
Stalinist Democides- 20 million (approximately)
Maoist Democides- 20-40 million (approximately)
King Leopold's Congo Free State- approximately 10 million
Conclusion- the twentieth century was a horrible time.
A favourable counting. Well: It were 6 million jews, though the total number may be around 11 million. That does not inculde the war. Acounted all together that is about 37 million in Europe.

Germany is at number three? Depends on the statistics ... I have seen that. I've also seen fifth. But if its ranking would not have changed, its total wealth might be greater. I can't believe that the economic chaos of the post-WWI period and the total destruction in the aftermath of WWII, as well as fifty years of division and the loss of nearly half of Germany's territory would not have a detrimental long-term effect.

Oh, I fully agree. I would have loved for the 1848 Revolutions to have created a democratic German state. But in reality, it was pretty much an impossible dream. It did, however have some effect on the development of the German Empire.

Bismarck is what I would call an amoral genius, and probably the greatest, if not the morally best politician of the 19th century. One critical attribute that he had, that neither Kaiser Willy or Hitler, was that he knew when to stop. In fact, he had a better sense of that than almost any other politician in history. He knew that once Germany had unified, Europe would not tolerate further aggrandizement. He also made a good choice of allies.

Kybernetia, read this:

http://www.klaus-krusche.de/kriegsschuld.htm


Prof. Henry E. Barnes schrieb in der Nummer 5/72 des "Deutsch-Amerikaner" (Washington): "Das deutsche Kriegsschuldbewußtsein stellt einen Fall von geradezu unbegreiflicher Selbstbezichtigungssucht ohnegleichen in der Geschichte der Menschheit dar. Ich kenne jedenfalls kein anderes Beispiel in der Geschichte dafür, daß ein Volk diese nahezu wahnwitzige Sucht zeigt, die dunklen Schatten der Schuld auf sich zu nehmen, an einem politischen Verbrechen, das es nicht beging, es sei denn jenes Verbrechen, sich selbst die Schuld am 2. Weltkrieg aufzubürden.

An den folgenden Äußerungen führender Politiker und entsprechender Presseveröffentlichungen ist zu ersehen, daß Deutschland nicht mit der Alleinschuld am 2. Weltkrieg belastet werden kann.

Churchill, der schon 1915 "Deutschland am Halse würgen wollte, bis sein Herz aussetzt," 1934 zu Brüning: "Wenn Deutschland zu stark wird, muß es zerschlagen werden, Deutschland muß wieder besiegt werden, und diesmal endgültig."1936 vor dem Parlament: "Deshalb scheint mir, daß alle die alten Gegebenheiten wieder vorliegen und daß unsere nationale Rettung davon abhängt, ob wir noch einmal alle Mächte in Europa vereinigen können, um die deutsche Vorherrschaft in Schranken zu halten, zu verhindern und wenn nötig zu vernichten. Wir werden Hitler den Krieg aufzwingen, ob er will oder nicht."
1940:
"Ich führe keinen Krieg mit Hitler, sondern ich führe einen Krieg mit Deutschland",
am 27.02.1944 an Stalin:
"Ich betrachte diesen Krieg als einen 30jährigen Krieg von 1914 an."
1946 in Fulton/USA:
"Der Krieg ging nicht allein um die Beseitigung des Faschismus, sondern um die Erringung der Absatzmärkte. Wir hätten, wenn wir gewollt hätten, ohne einen Schuß zu tun, verhindern können, daß der Krieg ausbrach. Aber wir wollten nicht."
Erst am 30.07.1952 bekannte Churchill sein Fehlverhalten in der feinen britischen Art: "Wir haben das falsche Schwein geschlachtet."

True enough about the war. Although I think we would have seen a lot of those casualties anyway, maybe a bit later. I doubt Stalin would've been able to resist making another land grab.

I simply highlighted the actual mass killings because starting a war isn't an act of special horror. It's definitely not a good thing, but it's a common feature of global politics. Hitler isn't the icon of 20th century evil because he wanted to expand his national borders. It was because he managed to manipulate and pervert one of the world's most advanced and civilized countries into becoming the world's most efficient killing machine.

Stalin took nearly thirty years to kill 20 million. Hitler is considered worse because he took to genocide with industrial efficiency ... most of that 10-12 directly murdered people was done in a few years. If anything is considered a 'German' trait by most people, it would be efficiency. He perfectly perverted one of the most powerfully percieved traits of the German people.

It's in German and I'm not going to translate it. It's for Kybernetia and exactly what I think:


Öffentliche Unschuldserklärung



Wir, die Mehrheit der Deutschen und Österreicher, sind es leid, immer noch und immer wieder zu einem „auf ewig schuldigen Volk“ erklärt zu werden. Wir werden daher hiermit Stellung beziehen zu den nicht enden wollenden „Schulderklärungen“, die von Vertretern des Staates, der Parteien, Kirchen und Verbände immer wieder öffentlich ausgesprochen und publiziert werden.

Wir erklären daher folgendes:



1. Schuld entsteht aus einem Vergehen gegen die moralischen und ethischen Normen einer Gesellschaft. Sie kann nur aus Handlungen oder Worten entstehen, niemals aus Gedanken oder Meinungen.



2. Schuld bedeutet Verantwortung für eigene Taten. Niemals entsteht Schuld aus den Taten anderer, auch nicht aus denen von Verwandten oder Vorfahren.



3. Es gibt keine Kollektivschuld, schon gar nicht für Taten, an denen man nicht beteiligt war. Wer das Gegenteil behauptet, tut das, um andere zu manipulieren und zu bevormunden, indem er ein falsches schlechtes Gewissen erzeugt.



4. Wir, die Unterzeichner, haben an keinen Gräueltaten des Zweiten Weltkrieges teilgenommen und lehnen es deshalb konsequent ab, für etwas verantwortlich gemacht zu werden, was wir weder getan haben noch hätten verhindern können. Wir erklären uns ausdrücklich für „nicht schuldig“ an den Verbrechen des Zweiten Weltkrieges, völlig unabhängig von der noch ausstehenden Klärung, welche davon nun wirklich stattgefunden haben und welche nicht.



5. Wir lehnen es ebenso ab, unsere Eltern und Großeltern pauschal für „schuldig“ zu erklären. Soweit persönliche Verfehlungen vorgelegen haben könnten, so sind diese gesühnt oder verjährt. Sollte persönliche Schuld in einigen Fällen ungesühnt geblieben sein, so bleibt dies nach mehr als einem halben Jahrhundert dem persönlichen Gewissen anheim gestellt, wie es nach Menschenrecht Sitte ist und war. Alleine die Mitgliedschaft in einer zugelassenen Partei (damals NSDAP oder KPD) ist in Demokratien erlaubt und darf daher nicht nachträglich als Schuld definiert werden. Wir verwehren uns gegen die ständigen Diffamierungen der Kriegs- und Vorkriegsgeneration unserer Vorfahren und gegen die Atmosphäre der unspezifischen Anklagen und des Mißtrauens, die damit geschaffen wird.



6. Schuld kann gesühnt werden, mit oder ohne Einsicht. Sie kann auch vergeben werden, mit oder ohne Einsicht. Keine Schuld währt ewig, sie endet spätestens beim Tode des Schuldigen. Auf keinen Fall ist Schuld übertragbar – weder auf Kinder noch auf das unschuldige Volk.



7. Dieses Konzept von „Schuld“ ist immer gültig – für alle Völker und zu allen Zeiten. Es darf nicht beliebig relativiert werden. Es gibt daher auch keine angebliche „Sonderschuld“ oder „ewige Sühne“, die wegen angeblicher „Einmaligkeit“ von Verbrechen willkürlich Ausnahmerecht erschafft.

Jeder Konflikt in der Geschichte wurde irgendwann beendet oder durch andere Konflikte abgelöst. Das ständige Aufreißen alter Wunden dient dem Frieden nicht, es verhindert ihn.



Wir treten für das friedliche Zusammenleben aller Völker ein und fordern daher die Einstellung sämtlicher Diffamierungen, einschließlich derjenigen gegen uns als Deutsche oder Österreicher.



Wir sind bereit, für Fehler einzustehen, die wir selbst begangen haben, aber wir erlauben niemandem mehr, in unserem Namen pauschale Schuldbekenntnisse für die Vergangenheit abzulegen. Wer weiterhin eine „Kollektivschuld“ propagiert oder bereit ist, aufgrund dieser behaupteten „Kollektivschuld“ Zahlungen von unserem Geld zu leisten, an wen auch immer, der handelt gegen unseren ausdrücklichen Willen, der von der Mehrheit des Volkes geteilt wird, und der muß sich irgendwann dafür verantworten.



Wir fordern die längst fällige Versöhnung der Kriegsfeinde von einst und einen Neubeginn ohne Diffamierungen. Wir fordern einen gleichberechtigten Platz in der Völkergemeinschaft und das Ende der Feindseligkeiten nach fast 60 Jahren durch einen Friedensvertrag auch für Deutschland. Es gibt keine „Erbsünde“, weder religiös noch politisch. Kein Volk steht durch Geburt über einem anderen, aber auch nicht darunter. Wir haben die selben Rechte wie jedes andere Volk und werden uns künftig gegen jeden weiteren Versuch wehren, der uns unsere Menschenwürde streitig machen will. Es muß endlich Schluß gemacht werden mit dem „Kult mit der Schuld“.

Mit unserer Unterschrift erklären wir unsere Zustimmung zu dem oben gesagten, ohne damit eine bestimmte politische Richtung zu unterstützen. Die Ablehnung der ewigen Schuldzuweisungen geht über alle Parteien und ideologischen Grenzen hinweg und wird auch von ansonsten unpolitischen Menschen mitgetragen.

http://www.klaus-krusche.de/unschuld.htm

I think a lot of the old attraction to eastward expansion might have to do with the fact that the Germans had (and have) elements of both East and West Europe in them. Nearly a quarter of Germans have large elements of Slavonic roots, and historically, large German populations existed (often in surprising harmony) as far east as the Volga River.
You notice a lot. I´ve such roots - one jewish grandfather, a czech-german (mixed) grandmother and a mother born in Czechoslovakia (they fled in 1955).
There are a lot of examples for the links to the eastern Europe.
For example the current foreign minister was born in Hungary.
There are - even today- small minorities in Romania.
Though most people were forced to leave as a result of WW II and many other came in the 1990s.
There were and are even some minorities in Kazachstan and Kirgistan in Central Asia as a matter of fact (though they were deported over there from the Wolga by Stalin).

Germany considered it neither as a part of the west nor the east. That was the historic dilemma. It was not in the position to do so. As a country in the centre of Europe it needs arrangements with both sides or at least one side. Germany used to play on the differences.
That changed as a result of WW II. The Federal Repbulic of Germany has interpreted itself as part of the west. In the begining disputed though due to the Soviet threat accepted this new definition kept ground during the 1950s.
The foreign policy strategy has since them two pillars: US and France as the two main players in the west of Germany.
Via that framework also the reunification was achieved in 1990. Sorry to say that: it required to isolate Maggie Thatcher in that respect.

@Giga

Du kennst Dich wirklich nicht mit Politik aus. Die BRD hat 1990 bewußt einen Friedensvertrag vermieden. Warum? Weil dann Reparationsforderungen an Deutschland gestellt worden wären.
Man hat das im Rahmen der 2 + 4 Verhandlungen mit den abschließenden Regelungen in Bezug auf Deutschland gelöst.
Damit ist die Sache erledigt.
Solange es noch Überlebende der damaligen Ereignisse gibt wird es natürlich immer große auch persönliche Belastungen geben. Auf diese Sensibilitäten muß man Rücksicht nehmen. Und auch darauf das andere Länder eine andere Sicht der Geschichte haben. Das kann man keinen Land verwehren. Es geht hier auch nicht um persönliche Schuld - das hat die Bundesrepublik auch immer abgelehnt - sondern um Verantwortung vor der Geschichte. Und wenn man die positiven Aspekte deutscher Geschichte nicht missen will (von Goethe bis Kästner und danach) dann kann man den negativen Aspekten nicht entgehen und deren unglaublichen Horror.
Das andere Länder ebenfalls negative Aspekte in ihrer Geschichte haben macht das doch nicht weniger schlimm. Ein Land muß sich seiner eigenen Geschichte klar stellen. Das gilt gerade auch für Deutschland. Und hier muß Deutschland weitherhin viel tun. Es hat viel getan - insbesondere im "Westen". Wenn aber 25% der Ostdeutschen nicht wissen was der Holocaust ist ist das besorgniserregend. Die beste Möglichkeit aus der Geschichte zu lernen ist sie zu kennen und sie zu verstehen. Im guten wie im schlechten. Man kann und darf davor nicht davonlaufen.

I remember when I first heard about the German expulsions in WWII. I recall being rather stunned, and a bit angry that the popular history tends to ignore it. The statistics vary, but they seem to agree on at least 11 million forcibly expelled, and up to two million killed. It's seems to vary, but the eleven million seems to be the norm. Of course, when you look at the map of Germany prior to 1914, it makes sense. Although I think the post-WWI map actually did a fairly good job of showing which areas were majority German.

There's actually quite a few former Volga or Polish Germans that live here, as well as Mennonites that came from Russia, but have ultimately German or Dutch heritage.

Fun note- Isolating Maggie Thatcher? Oh the humanity! If unification bothered her, well, even if I WASN'T in favor of it, I would be just to piss her off. Also, I like the mix in what is essentially a three-person convo ... a West German (right?) an East German, and a Canadian of (partially, and mostly intentifies as/wit) German ethnicity.

Germany is at number three? Depends on the statistics ... I have seen that. I've also seen fifth. But if its ranking would not have changed, its total wealth might be greater. I can't believe that the economic chaos of the post-WWI period and the total destruction in the aftermath of WWII, as well as fifty years of division and the loss of nearly half of Germany's territory would not have a detrimental long-term effect.

The economy of the Federal Republic (West Germany) was booming in the 1950s and 1960s and growing faster than the EC average even in the 1970s and 1980s. The Federal Republic once was the engine of growth in Europe.
And it was (although having at that time only a little more people than Britain or France) with clear distance the largest economy in Europe and the third largest of the world. Not for a coincidence the DM was the lead-currency of the European monetary system.
With the reunification the population increased by almost 25%, though the GDP only by 5%. Currently Germany is spending 4% of its GDP for developing aid for the East.
Germany has no become the sick man of Europe in the last 15 years.
None the less: Due to its seize it is and remains the largest economy in Europe and the third largest in the world: USA (25%), Japan (12%), Germany (7%). That is the share of the global GDP. In the field of global trade Germany has even increased its share from 9 to 10%.
Though the economy is growing very slowly since the 1990s. The burden of the reunification plays a huge role in it aside of the general trends in Europe (ageing societies, structural problems, high regulation, high unemployment, need for a reform of social security).


So economically Germany is number three.
The issue locks different when we look to security policy.
The Federal Republic used to be described as an economic giant and a political dwarf. After the reunification Germany became more active in that issue. For example it firstly commited troops abroad in 1993 in Somalia (UN-mission), in 1996 in Bosnia, in 1999 in Kosovo (first combat operation post world war II - Nato-air campaign), in 2001 Afghanistan and Enduring freedom.
Though when it comes to spending Germany is only on place six (a bit more than Saudi-Arabia). And only 1,4% of its GDP are spent for defense.
Britain and France are much more important in that respect.
Germany is however closely cooperating with France (franco-german alliance of 1963).

Wenn aber 25% der Ostdeutschen nicht wissen was der Holocaust ist ist das besorgniserregend. Die beste Möglichkeit aus der Geschichte zu lernen ist sie zu kennen und sie zu verstehen. Im guten wie im schlechten. Man kann und darf davor nicht davonlaufen.
Na das sagt der Richtige. Die ganze Zeit hämmerst du darauf herum wie schuldig Deutschland doch ist und wie das Deutsche Volk noch für mindestens 2000 Jahre Schuld sein wird. Mann mann.. und Kerry ist ein Flip-Flopper.. da haben die Amerikaner dich noch nicht gesehen.

Und deine lächerlichen 25% Ostdeutschen die "nicht wissen was der Holocaust ist" kannst du dir sonstwohin stecken. Geschichtsunterricht gab es und gibt es hier auch. Deutsche Geschichte, inklusive 2. Weltkrieg ist nicht West-exklusiv. Komm endlich mal von deinem hohen Ross runter und benimm dich nicht als wärst du irgendwas besseres nur weil du ein "Wessi" bist. Genau diese ständige Arroganz und Bevormundung von Millionen Menschen hier ist der Grund für das weiterhin bestehende Misstrauen. Lerne endlich dass Deutschland eins ist und deshalb auch wie eins behandelt werden muss. Schon die Gehaltsunterschiede, die es nach wie vor zwischen Ost/West gibt, sind ungerechtfertigt. Schliesslich kostet hier das Pfund Brot genausoviel wie im Westen und mein PC war auch nicht billiger als du ihn im Westen bekommen würdest. Wir hier sind nicht der "Slum" Deutschlands. Ich erwarte Gleichberechtigung und ein Ende deiner herablassenden und diskriminierenden Bemerkungen gegenüber Ostdeutschen.

Übrigens wurden die Reparationszahlungen mit dem 2+4 Vertrag nicht komplett vom Tisch geräumt. Nach wie vor gibt es Forderungen von Privatpersonen, speziell an Deutsche Unternehmen, nach Entschädigungszahlungen. Selbst 60 Jahre nach dem Krieg gibt es weiterhin Menschen die von dem Krieg profitieren und denen daran gelegen ist, Deutschland weiterhin die Alleinschuld aufzubürden. Ich kann das nicht einfach so hinnehmen und weigere mich für den 2. Weltkrieg irgendeine Form von Verantwortung zu übernehmen. Das bedeutet jedoch nicht, dass ich den 2. Weltkrieg verharmlose oder ignoriere. Stattdessen akzeptiere ich, dass er Teil der Deutschen Geschichte ist welche bereits viele Hundert Jahre alt ist (nimmt man mal die ganzen Germanischen Stämme und betrachtet die als Deutschland, dann sogar Tausende Jahre) und die paar Jahre Nationalsozialismus, so schlimm sie auch waren, werden mir nicht mein nationales Ehrgefühl nehmen.

The statistics vary, but they seem to agree on at least 11 million forcibly expelled, and up to two million killed. It's seems to vary, but the eleven million seems to be the norm. Of course, when you look at the map of Germany prior to 1914, it makes sense. Although I think the post-WWI map actually did a fairly good job of showing which areas were majority German. .
We all know that the winners write history. That was always the case and will ever be the case.

Fun note- Isolating Maggie Thatcher? Oh the humanity! If unification bothered her, well, even if I WASN'T in favor of it, I would be just to piss her off. Also, I like the mix in what is essentially a three-person convo ... a West German (right?) an East German, and a Canadian of (partially, and mostly intentifies as/wit) German ethnicity.
Germany needed the approval of the four winning powers.
The US approved of it under the condition that Germany remains in NATO - which was the intention of Germany anyway.
Britain and France were against it. They feared that the balance of power may be threatened due to it. The same can be said for other European countries. Though Chancellor Kohl managed to turn President Mitterand around. It is assumed that the decision for the Euro was actually made in that context in a bilateral discussion - though the idea existed before of course.
After France switched sides Britain had to do that as well.
And the Soviets already faced the nationality conflict and not just the prospects of losing Eastern Europe but also parts of the Soviet Union.
So, it was at the end a question of money. And that was paid - several billion. Five billion for the Nato membership. Fitheen billion for the withdrawl of the Soviets. And a lot latter given as loans to Russia.
Well, today there is an energy partnership between Europe and Russia and in particular between Russia and Germany. So, there is the prospect of an advantage for those huge "investments".

Gigatron:

I appreciate that you might want to talk to Kybernetia privately about some things, but I can't help but feel a little left out ... I don't understand German (yet), and although it's a bit irrational, I kind of feel like I'm being a bit edged out of my own thread. I'd also like to hear your views ... I started the thread specifically in hopes of bringing you and Kybernetia to it. To discuss issues of German history with Germans ... I want to get genuine views of it from the people themselves, not third-party historians.

Kybernetia:

I know that France wasn't happy about it at the time ... nor would Russia be. Although I think that Germany's best hopes of getting the economic ball rolling again steadily lies in the countries of the former Soviet bloc. There's big investment opportunities there, and Germany is well placed to take advantage of it.

Sorry, got carried away a little. I don't think I could say all this in English :)

Oh and Kybernetia, here's another link regarding Reparations payments:

http://www.bwl-bote.de/20020113.htm


Doch auch für den Zweiten Weltkrieg hat Deutschland anscheinend noch nicht genug bezahlt. Obwohl der Bundestag im Mai 2001 Rechtssicherheit festgestellt hat und die Auszahlung der Zwangsarbeiter-Entschädigungen freigab, soll Stuart Eizenstat, der US-Unterhändler über die Entschädigung von NS-Zwangsarbeitern, plötzlich die Frage nach Reparationsleistungen wieder aufgeworfen haben. Nur Zwangsarbeit, medizinische Experimente und "Arisierung" von Vermögen dürften fortan als abgegolten gelten. Das "Thema der Reparationen", so hieß es, bleibe vom Vertrag unberührt. Ja, es ist Shoah-Business!

Das wundert nicht, denn Deutschland hat bis heute, fast ein Menschenalter nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg, noch immer keinen Friedensvertrag, aber Reparationen dürfen nach Völkerrecht erst nach einem Friedensschluß festgelegt werden. Die Zahlungen, die Deutschland dem Grunde nach schon im Potsdamer Abkommen vom Februar 1945 auferlegt wurden, die bis 1954 immerhin 57 Mrd. Mark umfaßten, davon 40% an Israel, waren also völkerrechtswidrig - und der Wert der Demontagegüter und der verlorenen Ostgebiete wurde nie exakt bewertet, wenn das überhaupt möglich ist.

Ob man überhaupt zu einer "gerechten" Lösung kommen kann, weiß ich nicht. Und eigentlich will ich es auch nicht wissen, denn ich möchte nicht Auschwitz gegen Schlesien abwägen müssen, oder die DDR gegen die BRD. Nein, der Skandal hieran ist, daß spätere Generationen, die schon durch die Gnade der späten Geburt keine Schuld treffen kann, zu Leistungen verpflichtet werden, die Strafcharakter haben. Ein Verstoß gegen das Rechtsstaatsprinzip!

Dazu fällt mir nur noch ein, daß meine Vorfahren in Kroatien lebten, und ich sollte ein bißchen Ahnenforschung betreiben. Dabei könnte rauskommen, daß irgendwer vom römischen Kaiser Diokletian (245-313, Kaiser 284-305) verschleppt, ermordet oder sonst beschädigt worden ist, denn der hatte seinen Alterssitz in Salona, dem heutigen Split an der dalmatinischen Küste. Und wenn ich was finde, stelle ich entsprechende Ansprüche an den italienischen Staat als Rechtsnachfolger des alten Roms. Mal sehen, wie hoch 1.700 Jahren die Zinsen aufgelaufen sind...

Ich erwarte Gleichberechtigung und ein Ende deiner herablassenden und diskriminierenden Bemerkungen gegenüber Ostdeutschen.
Es gibt auch Gehaltsunterschied in Westdeutschland. Im übrigen spielen die Gewerkschaften ohnehin eine geringere Rolle. Ostdeutschland hat auch eine niedrigere Produktivität als Westdeutschland. Das sind nun mal die Fakten. Und das bedeutet eben das auch weniger gezahlt werden muss. Ansonsten wäre die Arbeitslosigkeit noch höher.
Ich habe nichts gegen Ostdeutsche. Allerdings sollten sie sich benehmen. Und nicht rüppelhaft herumstänkern.
Zugegeben: Ostdeutsche haben große Veränderungen durchmachen müssen. Aber das wird nicht aufhören. Westdeutschland muß auch durch einen Veränderungsprozess. Da müssen wir alle durch.
Insofern sehe ich das auch als eine nationale Aufgabe. Nur gemeinsam wird man sie bewältigen können. Aber das geht nur mit Realismus und nicht durch Illusionen.

Ich mache auch keine flip-flops. Es ist aber eine Tatsache das die Nazizeit als Makel an Deutschland kleben bleiben wird (im Ausland). Und zwar für sehr lange Zeit. Und da müssen wir verantwortlich mit umgehen.
Und das bedeutet nichts zu beschönigen oder zu verleugnen, sondern auf die Veränderungen in Deutschland hinzuweisen.
Wenn wir das machen dann können wir Fortschritte erzielen - noch mehr als in den letzen 50 Jahren. Aber wenn natürlich Neonazis gewählt werden, muss man sich nicht wundern wenn dadurch viel von dem was erarbeitet wurde kaputt gemacht wird und Ansehen wieder beschädigt wird. Und das ist sehr schade. Und daran sollten auch die Wähler denken. Dadurch kommen keine Arbeitsplätze, dadurch werden noch mehr vernichtetet.

Ich rede ja nicht nur von Gehältern in der Wirtschaft. Selbst Sozialhilfe oder Arbeitslosengeld oder Beamtenbesoldung ist hier niedriger als im Westen - völlig und absolut ungerechtfertigt. Und was die Produktivität betrifft, was, wie, wo? Glaubst du vielleicht wir hier ackern noch im LPG Kombinat rum und züchten Schweine und Kühe und sonst nix? Hier in Dresden gibts Hightech Berufe davon kannst du nur träumen. Gibts im Westen AMD? Nö. VW gibts hier auch sogar in ner Gläsernen Manufaktur. Gibts bei dir Infineon? Carl-Zeiss-Jena Optik? Ostdeutsche arbeiten genausoviel und genausogut wie Westdeutsche. Ich habe zum Beispiel Abitur, nach 12 Jahren Schule, und studiere im Moment Medieninformatik an der Technischen Universität Dresden. Und was bitteschön ist daran weniger produktiv als im Westen?!?!

Und Beamte oder Politiker machen hier genau den gleichen Job wie ihre Kollegen im Westen. Selbst da wird noch diskriminiert (wobei Politiker sich ja sowieso immer die Taschen vollschlagen).

Das einzige was eine geringere "Produktivität" sein könnte ist, dass hier andauernd Steuergelder in den Sand gesetzt werden. Milliarden die für den Aufbau Ost geplant waren werden irgendwelchen Konzernen in den Schlund geworfen und verpuffen wirkungslos. Betriebe wurden aufgekauft und liquidiert. Der Markt aufgeteilt und von Westdeutschen Unternehmen geplündert. Ist es ein Wunder, dass jetzt deshalb hier die Arbeitsplätze fehlen? Mit Arbeitslosenquoten von bis zu 30% sind es hier teilweise katastrophale Zustände. Und ich sehe nicht wie Hartz 4 oder Wessi-Arroganz daran irgendwas ändern sollen.

I know that France wasn't happy about it at the time ... nor would Russia be. Although I think that Germany's best hopes of getting the economic ball rolling again steadily lies in the countries of the former Soviet bloc. There's big investment opportunities there, and Germany is well placed to take advantage of it.
Well, Germany is already investing heavily in the east. Not just East Germany. German companies have invested a lot in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Russia. Germany is already the biggest trading partner of those and other Eastern countries.
I see a huge economic opportunity there.
Politicially things are however difficult especially with Poland and the Czech Republic due to historic reasons (occupation, ethnic cleansing afterwards). That is still a burden on the relationship to those two countries.
One reason Poland certainly sees more benefit in getting the US in - also in respect to the development of Russia. Poland could develop into the major US ally on the European continent (aside Britain) and replace Germany in that respect. Therefore I´m very critical of the foreign policy of the current government. It made things with Poland more difficult than they already are.
It is at the end like between Japan on the one side and Korea, China, Taiwan and others on the other side.
There is just no commen basis.
With Poland and the Czech Republic this is even more difficult than with Russia currently.
On the other hand: economically it looks good.
Polticially it will work out - however the franco-german alliances gets challenged by a british-polish alliance.
Up to a degree a dilemma. Germany can´t break out of the franco-german one - that is impossible. On the other hand it needs also ties with the east.
But the antagonism France - Britain-Poland is of course a problem.

Well, the Franco-German alliance is essentially the critical bond of the EU as it stands right now.

I'm also a little curious about Germany's global interests, that is, outside of the European neighbourhood. Especially regarding the concept (bantered about sometimes) of it getting a permanent seat on the UN Security Council? I guess, it's both a question in general, and secondly, of your opinion on the matter.

I don't know if I've said already, but I'm Canadian. So, I am regarding this from a North American perspective, although not necessarily that of the US.

Well, the Franco-German alliance is essentially the critical bond of the EU as it stands right now.

I'm also a little curious about Germany's global interests, that is, outside of the European neighbourhood. Especially regarding the concept (bantered about sometimes) of it getting a permanent seat on the UN Security Council? I guess, it's both a question in general, and secondly, of your opinion on the matter.

I don't know if I've said already, but I'm Canadian. So, I am regarding this from a North American perspective, although not necessarily that of the US.
It seems like a logical step to take, considering the commitments Germany has within NATO, economically in the world and during peacekeeping missions of the UN. Germany is an important nation in the world and should have the political influence in the UNSC to be properly represented in the modern global political landscape. Fear because of WW2 is unfounded. As entrenched as Germany is in the EU with France and Britain, it is highly unlikely that there is ever again going to be a war in Europe itself. Our respective nations rely on each other for trade a lot. Unless the EU breaks up, which unfortunately is a possibility, Europe is politically stable and Germany has other ambitions than waging wars in it's neighborhood.

I would agree with such a measure, although other nations should be added as well. The problem is that it's difficult to come up with a satisfactory list for permanent membership on the Security Council.

Germany, Japan and India seem to be the biggest candidates for an extended membership. As for a Latin American permanent member, I would be inclined towards Brazil as the most important, but it's harder to choose one from Latin America and Africa than Asia or Europe.

Ich rede ja nicht nur von Gehältern in der Wirtschaft. Selbst Sozialhilfe oder Arbeitslosengeld oder Beamtenbesoldung ist hier niedriger als im Westen - völlig und absolut ungerechtfertigt. Und was die Produktivität betrifft, was, wie, wo? Glaubst du vielleicht wir hier ackern noch im LPG Kombinat rum und züchten Schweine und Kühe und sonst nix? Hier in Dresden gibts Hightech Berufe davon kannst du nur träumen. Gibts im Westen AMD? Nö. VW gibts hier auch sogar in ner Gläsernen Manufaktur. Gibts bei dir Infineon? Carl-Zeiss-Jena Optik? Ostdeutsche arbeiten genausoviel und genausogut wie Westdeutsche. Ich habe zum Beispiel Abitur, nach 12 Jahren Schule, .
Dafür gibts hier andere Sachen. Das sind natürlich die Leuchttürme. Die sind hochproduktiv. Aber im Schnitt ist die Produktivität nach wie vor geringer.
Das Sachsen - im Gegensatz zu anderen Ost-Ländern- das 12jährige Abitur beibehalten hat war vernünftig. Herr Biedenkopf hat gute Arbeit geleistet. Sein Nachfolger scheint ja doch etwas schwach zu sein.

Mit Arbeitslosenquoten von bis zu 30% sind es hier teilweise katastrophale Zustände. Und ich sehe nicht wie Hartz 4 oder Wessi-Arroganz daran irgendwas ändern sollen.
Und ich sehe nicht wie Ossi-Larmoyanz daran etwas ändern sollen.
Es sind doch nicht diese Reformen die die Arbeitslosigkeit hevorrufen, sie werden die Probleme angehen. Und um es mal platt zu sagen. Der Staat kann es sich einfach nicht mehr leisten Arbeitslose in dem Maße zu alimentieren. Das man hier mit Beschäftigungsgelenheiten eingreift halte ich für angemessen. Und wer selbst Vermögen hat sollte das auch erst aufbrauchen müssen. Das ist doch nur sozial gerecht.
Und man muß doch mal die Entwicklung des Lebensstandards berücksichtigen. Der ist doch mit 1990 gar nicht mehr vergleichbar. Er hat sich gewaltig verbessert.
Hohe Arbeitslosenquoten gibt es auch im Ruhrgebiet, ohne das es eine derartiger politische Radikalisierung gibt.
Und wenn man daran etwas ändern will kann man nicht die Unternehmen und die "Reichen" mehr besteuern. Dann gehts halt ab in die Slowakei mit 19% flat tax. Das ist der Wettbewerb dem sich Deutschland stellen muß. Und wenn Deutschland hier nicht mitgeht geht es vor die Hunde. Wenn es hier mitgeht und die richtigen Prioritäten setzt - das heißt weniger Konsumausgaben (ins. Sozialausgaben) und mehr investive Ausgaben (z.B. in Bildung und Forschung) kann man auch wieder besser konkurrieren. Aber ohne Einschnitte geht es halt nicht. Man kann nicht beides haben. Das versprechen leider oft Politiker. Aber es geht nunmal nicht. Das die Bundesregierung das teilweise eingesehen hat ist vernünftig. Was soll sie denn auch sonst auch tun. Es gibt keine Alternative. Deutschland profitiert enorm vom Weltmarkt. Protektionismus wäre für Deutschland katastrophal. Aber das bedeutet eben auch das man Outsorcing hinnehmen muss und die Ausbilungssituation verbessern muß um eben auch mehr qualifizierte Fachkräfte zu haben.
Kürzlich hieß es erst: wir brauchen 100.000 qualifizierte Fachkräfte in der Metallindustrie. Es ist nunmal eine Krux. Es gibt auch einen enormen mismatch. Also Personen die arbeiten wollen für die es aber für ihre Qualifikation kein Angebot gibt aber in anderen Bereichen gibt es Fachkräftemangel. Das ist die Realität in Gesamtdeutschland.
Es gibt nunmal nicht ein Wundermittel. Aber man muss an verschiedenen Stellen ansetzen. Von der Bildung, über die Reform der Sozialsysteme (Kostensenkung) bis hin zu einer größeren Flexibilisierung.
Ich denke das man mittel-bis langfristig (10-20 Jahre) man zu einer deutlichen Verbesserung kommen kann.

Well, the Franco-German alliance is essentially the critical bond of the EU as it stands right now.
I'm also a little curious about Germany's global interests, that is, outside of the European neighbourhood. Especially regarding the concept (bantered about sometimes) of it getting a permanent seat on the UN Security Council?
I don´t think that Germany or any of the others are going to get a seat soon.
Secondly: I don´t see that it would make much of a difference. It would rather be a symbolic thing - since the UN is more or less a symbolic instituiton.
Up until the 1990s there was a enemy state clause in the UN against Japan and Germany. That was removed.
I don´t think that this reform proposal is a good ideas. Having more veto powers on the council would make things worse and not better in the UN.
Probably it can be modified some way. But the current bid has in my view no chance and it shouldn´t have. The UNSC would not be better with 9 veto power than with five.
I don´t see a lot of willingness in the German society to support military missions outside Europe. However the political class wants to play a bigger role on the international arena. A seat on the UNSC would certainly encourage Germany to take a even bigger responsibility. No seat would rather strengthen tendencies which are against more involvement.
On the other hand I don´t see an oportunity for Germany to stay out of all international affairs. Germany is too big to play Switzerland. The polticial class realizes that.
The most likely development seems to be working together with France.
In that respect Germany could play a bigger role - it for example assisted France in Kongo. But I don´t see a willingness after Somalia (1993 -the first mission by the way) to involve oneself again in African affairs).
But that would be an option. Aside of attempts to strengthen NATO again for the security of Europe. Keeping the US in is after all better than keeping it out - which isn´t really an option anyway.
I see a lot of German interests involved in the Balkans - since it is our neighbouring region we want stability over there. The economic interests go for France, the US, Eastern Europe and East Asia.
Building a strategic partnership (energy partnership) with Russia is in its interest and has already made huge progress. Today Germany receives a third of its oil and gas from Russia. That increases its dependency of the Middle East.
The second geostrategic consideration would be Turkey, the Caucasus and Central Asia. Turkey can be a gate to that very important region. Very important because it also has huge natural reserves and one doesn´t want to get too dependent from Russia.
For the same reasons Germany (aside of the others in Europe) tried to engage in a dialogue with Iran. Hasn´t worked out though, although one pipeline was built in 1997.
Aside of this hard interests which are pushed by diplomatic means there is the economic cooperation with China and South-East Asia and India. The government sees itself as a door-opener for it.
For developing countries Germany is pushing for initiatives for sustainable development.
Since Britain and France used to be the colonial powers in that area it makes sense to conduct a policy only together with those countries.
As a matter of fact: if the three big players in Europe it would be good. And although of differences I see fields for cooperation in that respect also between the UK, France and Germany.
The trilateral diplomatic mission to Iran is a huge challenge for this troika.
It may fail. That would be another back-lash of course.
But I think the ball is no on the side of the Iranians to act responsibly.
If not a conflict may accur. Highly likely.
In that situation it is necessary to involve Turkey in that region more.
On the other hand - the "reestablishment of the Ottoman Empire" would lead Turkey out of Europe and not into it. We´ll see how it turns out.
Either way Turkey is an important partner and has to play an important role.

As entrenched as Germany is in the EU with France and Britain, it is highly unlikely that there is ever again going to be a war in Europe itself. Our respective nations rely on each other for trade a lot. Unless the EU breaks up, which unfortunately is a possibility, Europe is politically stable and Germany has other ambitions than waging wars in it's neighborhood.
It would however deepen divisions in Europe to go for a national seat. There are after all four big countries: UK, France, Italy and Germany. The Italians are already annoyed that they aren´t invited into the British-French-German meetings.
And now they would be the only country of the G8 -except Canada - that had been left out of the UNSC. Italy is concerned that the G8 loses influence as a consequence of that development. It would be better to go for an European seat or try to find a settlement with the Italians that includes their interests - like a shared seat for example or and EU seat.
I don´t think that this has a chance otherwise. There are after all also many objections against India and Japan as well. I doubt that currently any of the countries has got a chance.
And adding more veto powers would make the UNSC even more inefficent then it is today.

Maybe another solution would be to remove veto powers for specific countries altogether? And to have veto power based on regional votes. Ie, a measure could be vetoed if a certain number of world regional units voted against a measure?

For example, let's say there's a European, East Asian, North American, South Asian, Middle Eastern, Oceanic, South American and African regional unit. Those nations have to vote for or against a measure. Maybe, if the countries in two or three of those regions, on the basis of one vote per country or a different system of representation, argued against a measure, it would be vetoed outright?

It would however deepen divisions in Europe to go for a national seat. There are after all four big countries: UK, France, Italy and Germany. The Italians are already annoyed that they aren´t invited into the British-French-German meetings.
And now they would be the only country of the G8 -except Canada - that had been left out of the UNSC. Italy is concerned that the G8 loses influence as a consequence of that development. It would be better to go for an European seat or try to find a settlement with the Italians that includes their interests - like a shared seat for example or and EU seat.
I don´t think that this has a chance otherwise. There are after all also many objections against India and Japan as well. I doubt that currently any of the countries has got a chance.
And adding more veto powers would make the UNSC even more inefficent then it is today.
The logical choice would then be to remove the UNSC and veto powers altogether. And that is, unfortunately, even less likely than a few countrys getting a permanent seat in addition to the five already there.

Maybe another solution would be to remove veto powers for specific countries altogether? And to have veto power based on regional votes. Ie, a measure could be vetoed if a certain number of world regional units voted against a measure?
I think we have to base political ideas on realism. And that is that none of the five veto powers would give up their individual veto right. That is a fact and they would need to agree to it.
I therefore actually agree with the US-UN-critics. The UN seems to be unreformable.
Probably it would be better to set up a new organisation.
I don´t see a realistic option for an UN reform which can be agreed by the General Assembly and the UNSC.

Maybe another solution would be to remove veto powers for specific countries altogether? And to have veto power based on regional votes. Ie, a measure could be vetoed if a certain number of world regional units voted against a measure?

For example, let's say there's a European, East Asian, North American, South Asian, Middle Eastern, Oceanic, South American and African regional unit. Those nations have to vote for or against a measure. Maybe, if the countries in two or three of those regions, on the basis of one vote per country or a different system of representation, argued against a measure, it would be vetoed outright?
A regional veto is a little hard to do. The NA veto would essentially still be a US veto (sorry, but Canada and the US is never going to be a good compromise), giving it a unique position to abuse the UN as political tool even more than the US already do.

North America for the purposes of this includes Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean nations. If it's done by one vote per country, the US doesn't have that power. And the system would require more than one region to move to veto. Two or three probably.

I'm also leaning seriously towards democratic nations at least being able to directly elect their UN delegates. It would make me feel more like I had a bit of a say about what goes on in there.

The logical choice would then be to remove the UNSC and veto powers altogether. And that is, unfortunately, even less likely than a few countrys getting a permanent seat in addition to the five already there.
But adding for more veto powers additionaly to the five would make things worse and decisions by it even more unlikely. I don´t see that as a good solution. If those four want to be a member of the UNSC while do they insists on the veto right? I don´t think it is realistic.

North America for the purposes of this includes Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean nations. If it's done by one vote per country, the US doesn't have that power. .
I don´t think that any of the five would give up its national veto right. Neither the US, nor the UK, nor France, nor Russia, nor China. That is a thing all of them can agree about.

I'm also leaning seriously towards democratic nations at least being able to directly elect their UN delegates. It would make me feel more like I had a bit of a say about what goes on in there.
The UN delegate or ambassador needs to represent the government. It wouldn´t make sense to elect them directly since they are only representing their countries.
Currently there are 10 non-perment members being elected by the General Assembly for two years. Not necessarily the worst system actually. It allows rotation. One reform proposal would actually go for a higher number of non-permanent members and for five a longer term. That may also be an option for reform, though it is far away from the ideas of the four.

I've just been musing a few things about German and European history. The rise of the Nazi movement was hardly inevitable, and was essentially the result of a certain set of historical events and trends, ie, the perceptions of the Treaty of Versailles, economic chaos in Germany, the lack of vitality in the Weimar democracy, etc.

But when I think about it, and this is more an opinion than anything, I keep thinking about Imperial Germany and how Imperial Germany did or didn't provide a background for the Nazi movement. Most promeniently, I think about the cult of personality, which was a major part of Hitler's success in Germany.

Kaiser Wilhem II was in this respect a sort of forerunner of Hitler, it seems. Vain, shallow and theatrical in the extreme, one of the few things he did consistently was develop a sense of quasi-mystical nationalism. Sound familiar ... it kind of does to me. The Nazi movement, for all its horrors, found a lot of its appeal (in my opinion) in the presentation of a romantic notion of German destiny. Wilhem's Weltpolitik inspired much of the same feelings.

This is not to say that the last ruling Hohenzollern was entirely like Hitler. He lacked the nerve (although it sounds too positive to use for Hitler), and of course, did not construct a vast police state apparatus. However, the Imperial German political system was not really democratic, he viewed himself as a monarch with divine right. One could argue that along with personal differences, one of the main differences was that the Kaiser was very much indebted to Protestantism, whereas Hitler hated Christianity and wanted to eventually exterminate it.

Hitler played on perverted notions of certain streams of German history, especially the concept of eastward expansion (a historical fact with mixed consequences) and of romantic nationalism (relatively recent). These are also concepts that the last Kaiser, or Ludendorff/Hindenburg played around with.

One of the tragedies of Imperial Germany, however, was that it never really got to develop fully. Perhaps, with a better, more pragmatic ruler, it could have developed more fully democratic institutions. Such a Germany would have been an incredibly dynamic force. Germany is positioned, both geographically, materially and socially, to be the engine of Europe.

I think a lot of the old attraction to eastward expansion might have to do with the fact that the Germans had (and have) elements of both East and West Europe in them. Nearly a quarter of Germans have large elements of Slavonic roots, and historically, large German populations existed (often in surprising harmony) as far east as the Volga River.

Fundamentally, I think the German story of the 20th century is one of the greatest tragedies in European, and indeed, world history. Today, Germany is a prosperous nation, one of the wealthiest in the world, but it is (probably) only a part of what it could have ... almost should have been.

If all this seems really pro-German, then, yes, I am pro German. I admire German culture, and I happen to be of German descent. I am also aware of the horrific crimes that have been committed by Germans (although not the German people ... they were victims and victimizers both) in the course of the century.

I've got a little off track ... so I'm just going to post this, musing, I suppose on Germany and its past and wait for the flaming to happen.
So you have also come to the trivial conclusions that have already been around for at least 60 years? Where do you live?

Kaiser Wilhem II was in this respect a sort of forerunner of Hitler, it seems. Vain, shallow and theatrical in the extreme, one of the few things he did consistently was develop a sense of quasi-mystical nationalism.

I disagree with this. The quasi-mystical nationalism was part of every major country in Europe at the time. It wasn't an exclusive German thing. Allthough it ran a bit stronger there. But can you realy say thats suprising? In only 30 years the once shattered German kingdoms and dukedoms had transformed a society largely depending on agri culture to be the most powerful industrial nation of the continent even surpassing Britain. Also in the military sence they were the most powerful nation on the continent possessing the second largests navy in the world and eliminating the age old enemy France, who always used Germanies disunity to it's advantage and trampled it's soil for centuries, as a seriouse threat. And taking back Alsace Lorraine which the French had stolen in the days of Louis XIV.

It's impossible to say, but I think it's safe to say, that if it was allowed to fully realize itself (Germany was still growing fairly rapidly when WWII started), that Imperial Germany would have occupied a role in the global economy at LEAST as promenient as Japan is today.
Well, Germany was the second strongest economy in the world at the end of the '50's. But later on it slipped to a 3rd place when Japan started flooding the world markets with it's products.

I think the mass killings are more important than the war in terms of measuring German guilt. Nations start wars for all sorts of reasons, honorable or dishonorable. The pecuiliarity of Hitler lay in what he tended to do with the conquered, particularly if they happened to be Slavic or Jewish.

As far as the tolls for straight-out mass murder, rather than the horrors of war in general ... this is an estimate, so corrections are welcome. But I think I'm mostly right.

Nazi Holocaust- 10-12 million total, about 5-5.5 million of which were Jews. Could be somewhat higher, depending how you count Soviet civilian losses.
Japanese Democides- don't have good numbers, am going to guess about 10 million, most of whom were Chinese
Stalinist Democides- 20 million (approximately)
Maoist Democides- 20-40 million (approximately)
King Leopold's Congo Free State- approximately 10 million

Conclusion- the twentieth century was a horrible time.
The Congo thing was in the 19th century. And I highly doubt that the Belgians realy kill 10 to 15 million in Congo.

You notice a lot. I´ve such roots - one jewish grandfather, a czech-german (mixed) grandmother and a mother born in Czechoslovakia (they fled in 1955).
There are a lot of examples for the links to the eastern Europe.
For example the current foreign minister was born in Hungary.

If your talking about Fischer, he was born in Gerabronn/Baden-Württemberg.

We all know that the winners write history. That was always the case and will ever be the case.


Germany needed the approval of the four winning powers.
The US approved of it under the condition that Germany remains in NATO - which was the intention of Germany anyway.
And not to forget the limitation of the German military to a maximum of 345,000 troops.

The Congo Free State was established in the 19th century, but it it was Leopold's private colony until 1909. And he didn't directly KILL ten million people, but the starvation, disease, etc, that was directly attributable to his reign of terror did. It's an estimate, but the population was about halved between 1890-1910. Most people estimate the Congo had about twenty million people before the establishment of the Free State.

I suggest you read a book called King Leopold's Ghost, by Adam Hochschild.

Ankher- Canada ... and geez. It's not really an essay as much as a series of thoughts.

The Congo Free State was established in the 19th century, but it it was Leopold's private colony until 1909. And he didn't directly KILL ten million people, but the starvation, disease, etc, that was directly attributable to his reign of terror did. It's an estimate, but the population was about halved between 1890-1910. Most people estimate the Congo had about twenty million people before the establishment of the Free State.

I suggest you read a book called King Leopold's Ghost, by Adam Hochschild.
Not necessary. Thats what I was going to type in case you were gonna claim that the Belgian troops had actually KILLED all of them. You wouldn't believe how many people actually believe that the 19th century Belgians had the capability to do so.