German Politics Thread

Well, the UK is still having issues with the invasion of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, so we're a little less concerned with the problems the Angles, Saxons and Jutes had with the Norse and the Danes.

You forgot the Norman Invasion as well.

There's also that one diamond from India that's still stuck in the crown. Doesn't India still want that rock back?

edited 6th Jan '17 9:53:53 PM by M84

Fun fact about Namibia: tribal representation in the national government you guys handed money to in Windhoek? Mostly Aawambo aka the predominant tribal grouping. Guess who has (when not white people) taken over a lot of the land that had been Herero and Nama land back before they got genacided and cleansed off it? And, you wonder why they are less than happy?

In short: congrats on screwing up tribal politics again, Germany. But, at least you threw money at roughly black people, right?

So, should Germany ever feel the need to say sorry to ex-German East Africa, might I suggest including the tribal leaders of the specific groups who got hit in where money and manpower goes? Might work better.

edited 6th Jan '17 10:51:59 PM by Euodiachloris

If I understand the whole matter correctly the tribal leader want the money to buy back land they think belong to them from the descendants who stole it from them in the first place. Excuse me if I don't feel comfortable with the notion. In addition, no matter where the money ends up, it will screw the power balance in the region, which is exactly why I question the wisdom of Germany paying money to any specific group in the first place.

The idea of paying money to a government is naturally that the money will be used for the advantage of everyone in the region. If that is the reality, well, I doubt it. Just like I doubt that the money Germany paid to various government with the stipulation that it will be used for Holocaust victims actually ended up with said Holocaust victims. Though this is in the end something those groups might have to take up with their own government.....

edited 7th Jan '17 2:55:33 AM by Swanpride

Yep. They offered to pay the Cameron government quite the sum of cash to get it back.

Cameron blew them off by saying the diamond was an indispensable part of British culture.

Yeah, I don't buy it.

The Koh-i-Noor thing or that suing the German government in a US court will lead to anything?

X4 Thing is the current ballence of power came about due to Germany's actions, so the ballence is wrong and should be changed.

In the end the German payments made didn't help thouse who were victims, they benefited the profiteers. It'd be like paying the Swiss money as an apology for WW 2.

edited 7th Jan '17 3:45:37 AM by Silasw

It's more like rocking up to Vienna at the height of the Holy Roman Empire, dumping a load of money in front of the nearest group of people with weird chins on the basis that they are responsible for the place because Empire and saying, "Sorry about something I did to Eastern Friesland — hope this helps them, ktnxbai."

Charles V wouldn't pass it along to the Eastern Fries, that's for bloody sure. In this hypothetical scenario, if you really mean it, you should really bother some dude with a big house in Emden, or somewhere. The money might even hit more common people. Eventually.

Am I suggesting that many ex-colonies are fragile states barely deserving of the name and are glued together by circumstances of history more than anything else, so trusting to their national governments to do what they're legally supposed to do for all their people is a mug's game, see the Holy Roman Empire for why? YES.

They like to act all post-Westphalian in their statehood, but their idea of the social contract and the politics on the ground ain't. And, Africa does understand the concept of weregeld on its own terms, not yours. When, you know, you actually pay the people who are actually owed it, and not just the landlord?

edited 7th Jan '17 4:36:49 AM by Euodiachloris

All this are even more reasons why I am so dead set against Germany paying any more money for past crimes. Money can't replace what was taken - and in the case of the Herero the big question is if what they want to claim as theirs was actually theirs to begin with, because they originally entrenched into the territory of the Nama. If I remember correctly the Heroro went to Namibia towards the end of the 17th century, mostly during the 18th century. Germans turned up only one century later.

On another topic: The fight against misinformation has started:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/07/german-police-quash-breitbart-story-of-mob-setting-fire-to-dortmund-church

The German subsidiary of Breitbart will learn soon that they won't get away with half the stuff they did in the US in Germany. Our laws don't understand "free speech" as "You can say whatever you want" but as "you can say whatever you want unless you deliberately create hate against a specific person or group of people through misinformation".

Also, it is kind of funny that the Bild runs an article about this....I mean it isn't exactly the most reputable newspaper.

It doesn't matter about who started genociding whom, first. Or who belongs where. What's upsetting people on the ground is that they were dictated to from on high and told to be grateful for getting zilch of the compensation for screwing their culture over which could help their communities in the here-now in ways they could have a say in. Even if you feel the Herero don't have the right to buy land they had taken before you took it from them — so effing what? They were going to try legally buying it, rather than picking up the spears and slaughtering over the ground again. And, it's not your business to tell them how to use the money — it's between them and the Nama to hash out who gets what and how and how they both get to stick fingers up at Windhoek for ignoring them for decades. Both sides have reasons to stick together on this one (like, not seeing eye-to-eye with every other tribe in Namibia): they're not about to go Hutu and Tutsi.

And, even if they did go Rwanda: well, that's why jumping in with two feet to point out you aren't Nazi Germany is just as dumb as setting concentration camps up in the region. Turning all "well, this is why we should stop cleaning up the new mess we caused because it's too complicated and we shouldn't have done it anyway" is not helping. Before you can walk away, you need to fill in a few of the holes you've been busy digging over the last 20 years, or in 40, the issue will come back... again. Bigger and more messy.

I am not upset of the Herero buying this land if they want to, I question if the German government paying money to the decedents of the victims of a crime so that they can pay off the decedents of the ones who committed the crime is the right way to go, especially if the Herero end up overpaying for what they want. Nothing about this looks in any way right. Which is why I am so dead set on focussing on making amends by giving back what can be given back while formally apologizing over just dishing out money.

edited 7th Jan '17 8:10:52 AM by Swanpride

OK: let's try this a different way. Is-ought.

Money has been paid to this Namibian government in reparation for self-confessed war-crimes against specific population groups. Was it well distributed? No. Are said groups happy with the arrangement? No. The options are: wash hands and pretend everything is fine. Try to address issues resulting from the balls-up (and the chain of other issues that are likely to happen over the next few decades). Stick heads in the sand until the issues get big enough to start kicking you in the rear. Or, go through several of these options, half-arsing each one. What ought you to do? Dunno: that's the joy to not having a clue what's going to happen in 50 years time. You bumble through the oughts because lights are flimsy projections that may or may not be valid.

Hand-washing and going on about what ought to have been done (but wasn't) and who really is to blame (big ball of fuck-ups by multiple players) and dithering about what should be done, but nobody knows, really, so how about nothing? That's sand-heading without admitting to sand-heading. Welcome to being an ex-colonial power with skeletons in the closet. It's the price you pay for the C19th. You're going to keep messing up their lives and feeling bad about it until you quit telling them what they should do.

If you work out how to quit telling them what to do in condescending ways that make them out to be ungrateful brats for not taking your randomness as graciously as you hoped they would — tell everybody else the secret: we all need it.

Actually, no reparations have been made. Development all aid has been going there for a long time, and Government says the reparations ought to be considered paid with those.

Now, I'd be okay with some additional aid being given to the proper groups, maybe so that a certain other state has to pay it's next attack sub on its own

No, it is finally drawing a line, because what has been done back then, can't be changed, and everything which will be done now is just influencing the region even further. If this happened ten, twenty, fifty years ago, this would be different. There would have been still survivors, and the time span would be short enough to correct some of the shifts which were caused. But we are talking about a time gab of more than 100 years for the crime committed and 99 years away from the moment Namibia was no longer under Germany's control.

I stick to my opinion that this should be about giving back whatever cultural objects were taken and whatever property is still in the ownership of Germany itself, giving a formal apology to the different leaders (which will most likely not be accepted, considering how deep the hatred runs) and otherwise leave it to the State of Namibia to sort this out.

Yup, sorry about that. Developement aid/ reparation/ guilt hand-outs... whichever. They're basically weregeld under various different names and hair-splitting.

Which doesn't help the whole relationship much. If it's developement aid for a while region, great. If it has strings attached — fine, whatever: SOP. There are always strings whenever anybody hands aid out — TANSTAAFL, it's the way people use aid. Regardless of whether that's a good idea or not.

If it isn't supposed to be for the whole region, but for specific groups, then... That should have been made clear, sooner. If it was one thing, suddenly redefining it as something else for reasons that weren't originally intended is just juggling labels and/or dictating what the strings are on the fly, when you're all airborne.

Can you see how annoying that is?

I can see the logic in opposing the claim if one opposes the idea of reparations being given at all. The fact that reparations had previously been given wrongly (in such a person's opinion) shouldn't mean that they should be given wrongly again.

If reperations are given they should be given to the right people, but if one opposes reperations generally than I can see the logic of opposing them even fi they would go to the right people.

edited 7th Jan '17 10:49:33 AM by Silasw

I oppose reparations if the victims of the crime have all already died of old age, for the stated reasons. I am decidedly pro giving back stolen property if possible and acknowledging the crime which was committed.

BMW, Deutsche Telekom and Vapiano among others have pulled advertising from Breitbart following a falsified news story involving the burning down of a German church.

Didn't they pull the advertising beforehand, once they realized where the money went?

I can feel Arlington rotating enough to take flight soon.

FDR has already dug his way to China.

And somewhere in British Soil, Winston Churchill is trying to reconstitute himself