Are Today's Germans Morally Responsible for the Holocaust?

[Grinning_Colossus]

Um that was idiotic.  Whatever good points he might have made were pretty much ruined by that stupid crap about miscegenation.

Why?

Because self-hatred is involved in so many facets of human pair bonding, it seems silly to just single out the racial angle.

[Monoriu]

I refuse to be held responsible for anything my ancestors did, regardless of how horrible the crime was.  So I won't insist that others be held responsible either.

But I also make the distinction between states and individuals.  The German state has moral responsibily to admit guilt, fight revisionism, and take measures to prevent the same from happening. 

[Razgovory]

What an absurd question.

I'll put you down in the "defiant contempt" category.

[Razgovory]

There's probably an evolutionary monkey reason for it, but I have no idea why modern people would feel guilt over the crimes of others. I reject the concept of guilt as anything but individual.

If people can feel pride for their group, for instance being a proud American, can they not also feel shame for the same reason?

[Eddie Teach]

If people can feel pride for their group, for instance being a proud American, can they not also feel shame for the same reason?

Pride is a more fun affectation than shame.

[Caliga]

I think Germans have humanity has a moral responsibility to be aware that they, as a people species, were once capable of this type of action, and to guard against a repeat.

edit: damnit, my point has already been made.  Damn work keeping me off Languish! 

[Admiral Yi]

I think Germans have humanity has a moral responsibility to be aware that they, as a people species, were once capable of this type of action, and to guard against a repeat.

edit: damnit, my point has already been made.  Damn work keeping me off Languish! 

Sure.  While we're at it, why not all mammals, or all vertebrates, or all life forms in the universe?

Genocides in the literal meaning of the word (in sharp contrast to the new, faggy, definition) are few and far between.  And the combination of medieval bigotry and industrial efficiency that was the Holocaust is totally unique in human history.

I don't feel Tibetans have any moral responsibility to guard against their tendency to exterminate entire ethnic groups.  Nor do Balians, or Swedes, or Australian aborigines, or most people in the world.

[Caliga]

I think you have to at least concede it wasn't just the fault of the Germans.  Lots of other people in allied and occupied countries actively helped them perpetrate the Holocaust.

[grumbler]

Sure.  While we're at it, why not all mammals, or all vertebrates, or all life forms in the universe?

So it's either all life in the universe, or just the Germans?  Nothing in between is possible?

Genocides in the literal meaning of the word (in sharp contrast to the new, faggy, definition) are few and far between.  And the combination of medieval bigotry and industrial efficiency that was the Holocaust is totally unique in human history.

Disagree on the first point (that's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy), and would point out that every genocide has been unique in some fashion, so the second point is a tautology.

I don't feel Tibetans have any moral responsibility to guard against their tendency to exterminate entire ethnic groups.  Nor do Balians, or Swedes, or Australian aborigines, or most people in the world.

What makes you think only some groups of people have a "tendency to exterminate entire ethnic groups?"  How can we tell these groups or people from those who simply haven't manifested a "tendency to exterminate entire ethnic groups," but will do so in the future?  After all, the Germans prior to, say, 1880 exhibited none of those tendencies, either.

[Ed Anger]

Polacks are single cell organisms.

[Grinning_Colossus]

Genocides in the literal meaning of the word (in sharp contrast to the new, faggy, definition) are few and far between.  And the combination of medieval bigotry and industrial efficiency that was the Holocaust is totally unique in human history.

Disagree on the first point (that's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy), and would point out that every genocide has been unique in some fashion, so the second point is a tautology.

I think he means he's sticking to the definition of genocide as the actual physical mass-murder of people rather than just forcing them out of a region or, god help us, "cultural genocide."

[Eddie Teach]

Or the classic version, killing the men and raping the women.

[Razgovory]

If people can feel pride for their group, for instance being a proud American, can they not also feel shame for the same reason?

Pride is a more fun affectation than shame.

"It's fun", isn't the most satisfactory answer.

[Queequeg]

I think it is odd to make the responsibility specific to present-day Germans.  The real lesson - one that has been taught before and since - is that any people are capable of such an action, and hence all  peoples need to guard against a repeat.  The significance of the Holocaust and Germany specifically is that present-day Germans may be more likely to have that awareness  because of the efforts made to inculcate it into the definition of post-1945 German political culture and ideology.

Pretty much.  I don't think there are a dozen different Sonderwegs to explain why all these 20th Century nations went totalitarian and nuts in the mid-20th Century.  There's likely not an underlying similarity between Cambodia and Weimar Germany that made them both susceptible to violent national insanity. 

[Eddie Teach]

If people can feel pride for their group, for instance being a proud American, can they not also feel shame for the same reason?

Pride is a more fun affectation than shame.

"It's fun", isn't the most satisfactory answer.

Answer was "it's an affectation".