I think the fact that east Germany was run by the Soviets probably had a TINY bit to do with that.
What exactly do you think the word âredeemâ means, because it seems by your posts to bear no relation to the dictionary definition.
Iâm also not sure why youâre posing an impossible hypothetical as if itâs some sort of âgotchaâ. I proved your statement to be wrong and youâve done everything you can since to avoid that.
You were demonstrably unaware of post WW2 German history, but it seems youâll argue whatever it takes to avoid accepting that.
@Timex still waiting for that quote. You wouldnât be all talk would you?
Youâre insulting with every question you ask. Is there a particular reason youâre being a dick or are you just having a bad dad?
Thatâs how he is. Heâs literally an asshole 100% of the time. Thatâs why I donât bother engaging him. Itâs a waste of time.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?
West Germany also had better Riesling vineyards, and ended up with a stable democracy. East Germany did not, and ended up with a totalitarian dictatorship.
I think the real reason for the different outcomes was neither the wine nor the Nazis. It was the political domination by the USSR, just like all the other non-former Nazi countries behind the Iron Curtain.
Sure, but former Nazis were in the right generation to govern Germany from 1970 through 1990. And yet they were shunned.
The dictionary lists âatoneâ as a synonym. If you want an operational definition, someone is redeemed when they are restored to their original status. If you are forever a cause of shame, then you are not fully redeemed. Like most former Nazis.
You havenât proven anything at all. You disagreed with Armando, gave a worthless example, and then forgot the point.
Yeah so professional asshole. i think I blocked you on the last board if I recall properly. I wonât be engaging you.
Oh dear. You must defend your ignorance of that particular period in history at any cost.
Here is what you said:
Itâs arguable that post-WW2 Germany is what it is today because the post-Nazi government excluded former Nazis from power
I proved that was not the case. Youâve changed the argument multiple times since then.
Walter Scheel, President of West Germany from 74-79 was a former NSDAP member. Kurt Georg Kiesinger, Chancellor of Germany from 66-69 was a former NSDAP member. 79% of Supreme Court Judges were former NSDAP members/supporter in 1956. I can list tens more. You are clearly not well-versed with this period of history.
@Nesrie Thatâs still not evidence.
Like I said, you forgot the point. You were defending Nazis as redeemable, remember?
As for me, I still think your example is worthless. And I still think that modern Germany is what it is today because modern Germany excludes former Nazis from power.
I can clarify what I mean, now can you clarify your defense of Nazis?
As for me, I still think your example is worthless. And I still think that modern Germany is what it is today because modern Germany excludes former Nazis from power.
Oh, you mean youâre changing your argument after I proved you wrong?
You really are thoroughly dishonest.
Itâs arguable that post-WW2 Germany is what it is today because the post-Nazi government excluded former Nazis from power
Post-Nazi government somehow now means âmodern Germanyâ, but only after 5 posts and after I proved you to be thoroughly ignorant about German history?
And then, redeemable now means âfully redeemableâ?
Where have I defended Nazis?
No, Iâm being honest. Your argument really is shit.
I quoted you completely changing your argument, but youâre being honest? How does that cognitive dissonance work?
How is that defending Nazis exactly?
Actually, nevermind.
âHey, Iâm magnet, I know nothing about post WW2 german political history but Iâm going to pretend I do and then effectively lie about my own posts so I can avoid being wrongâ.
Itâs quite simple.
-
First I thought your argument was shitty because modern Germany excludes Nazis from power.
-
Then you pointed out that by âpost-WW2 Germanyâ, you actually meant the years immediately following the war, not modern Germany.
-
Then I thought your argument was shitty because it demonstrates pragmatism, not any real sense of âredemptionâ or general acceptance by society. As demonstrated by the fact that modern Germany excludes Nazis from power.
Either way, your argument is shitty. Faced with this incontrovertible fact, you have decided to focus on #2 and my confusion over what you meant. Then, to cap it all off, you took a page from Trump and accused me of the intellectual dishonesty that you continually demonstrate.
Even after I provided the spiegel link you continued to argue that I was wrong, which would suggest this post is a lie. Which would further suggest you will go to any length to avoid acknowledging or admitting that you were ignorant of the subject you were talking about.
Itâs not dishonest to change your argument after I disprove it?
Itâs not dishonest to change âredeemâ to âfully redeemâ? That doesnât constitute changing the goalposts?
Itâs not dishonest to lie about what you thought I meant, a lie demonstrated amply by your own posts?
Ok, whatever.
It certainly makes sense that talking about Nazis in post WW2 Germany would refer to 2017, and that you would still believe I was talking about 2017 even after I posted a source and quotes that were about the 40s-60s.
Iâd rather be Timexâs asshole than be someone whoâll lie to avoid being wrong.
Here, a quote damning you with your own words:
Itâs arguable that post-WW2 Germany is what it is today because the post-Nazi government excluded former Nazis from power and banned the rise of new Nazis.
You quite clearly didnât think I was referring to modern Germany. Go lie some more.
My argument is the same: your argument is shitty and you are intentionally trying to distract me from how shitty it is. As exemplified by the fact that you would rather write about me than the redeemability of Nazis.
The reason why it is shitty changed after you gave me your Spiegel link, because I realized you were making a different shitty argument than the shitty argument you originally seemed to be making.
It is not dishonest to find more reasons why your argument is shitty. In fact, here is one more: if your argument relies on parsing the difference between âredeemâ and âfully redeemâ, then you demonstrate that it is even shittier than I originally thought. So thanks for helping me making my point.
And now, faced with the shittiness of your argument, you make things up.
Thatâs irrelevant to the fact that you lied to deflect being wrong. Why wouldnât I focus on the fact that another forum poster is lying in their replies to me?
Why would I go back to the redeemable argument when youâve shown youâre happy to lie if I provide something you find uncomfortable?
Itâs arguable that post-WW2 Germany is what it is today because the post-Nazi government excluded former Nazis from power and banned the rise of new Nazis.
Somehow became
First I thought your argument was shitty because modern Germany excludes Nazis from power.
Strange, even the tense changes!
Iâm making things up, even when I can quote you lying. Whatâs next to avoid being wrong, sacrificing your firstborn?
I did, in fact, think you were referring to Germany in general, rather than focusing on a brief moment in its immediate postwar history.
Because really, who gives a crap what Germany was doing in 1946 when itâs pretty obvious what happened to former Nazis afterwards?
Germany did exclude Nazis from power, and this did happen in the past, and that is my entire point.
And yet the tense changes. And yet you continued to make the same argument even after I posted about the 1940s-1960s. You even replied to antlers, referring to the same period. Modern only suddenly appeared right at the very end.
What happened to former Nazis afterwards?
They became Secretary General of the UN?
They became Chancellor of West Germany?
They became Prime Minister of West Germany?
They made up 79% of Supreme Court judges in West Germany?
Right. The difference between someone not knowing something, and someone being ignorant of something is being amply demonstrated by you.
And now, the 1940s-1960s (1970s in some cases) equals âits immediate postwar historyâ. Yet again you twist the argument.
Anything to avoid being wrong. Anything!
I would have been happy to argue about why I believed Nazis were in most cases redeemable, but you dragged us into this tangent because you simply would not accept that you were wrong, even in the face of proof.
P.S.
My first post:
Or you know, major parts of both the East and West Germanâ governments who remained largely run by former Nazis well up into the 70s (and later).
Former nazis played a large part in forming the organisation that would become the European Union, former nazis would play large parts in re-arming west Germany and joining NATO. Given that former nazis made up 1/3rd of the German population, former Nazis undoubtedly played a role in everything positive that came from West Germany post WW2.
My second post:
Post WW2 Germany would suggest Naziâs are eminently redeemable, and itâs possible to quickly and effectively rehabilitate Nazis who actually murdered, killed and supported the killings of others.
Your first post:
the post-Nazi government excluded former Nazis from power and banned the rise of new Nazis.
My third post provided the spiegel link and quotes about former Nazisâ involvement in West Germany from the 40s to the 60s
Your second post:
Your quotes simply show that it is very difficult to replace a bureaucracy overnight. But the motivation is clear: Nazis were not welcomed with open arms, they were begrudgingly hired when there was no other choice.
Your third post:
Iâll spell it out: you said that former Nazis were redeemable, and provided immediate postwar Germany as an example. But thatâs simply an example of pragmatism.
Your sixth post:
As for me, I still think your example is worthless. And I still think that modern Germany is what it is today because modern Germany excludes former Nazis from power.
Your eight post:
First I thought your argument was shitty because modern Germany excludes Nazis from power.
Iâm sorry, but thereâs no way you arenât lying about this.
I may choose my hills to die on poorly, but at least I didnât choose this one.
Apparently the entire argument revolves around whether 1945 - 1960 can be considered âmodernâ Germany. Iâm thinking⌠nope? It is currently 2017, so 1965 would be more than 50 years ago.
I suggest taking up some other hobby @kedaha.