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 “its immediate postwar history”. 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.
My first post:
Or you know, major parts of both the East and West German’ 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 Nazi’s are eminently redeemable, and it’s 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 Nazis’ 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:
I’ll spell it out: you said that former Nazis were redeemable, and provided immediate postwar Germany as an example. But that’s 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.
I’m sorry, but there’s no way you aren’t lying about this.