German Politics Thread

As pointed out numerous times, German aversion to debt and inflation has little to do with Weimar and more with how Germany's economy and society is constructed.

1. Germans have most of their money in bank accounts, not houses, the home owner rate is very low compared to countries in Southern Europe, which meana that Draghis' term at the ECB was very beneficial for Italy, but very painful to Germans (of course in a way it was also bad for Italy long-term, since it eased the pressure for competetive reforms).

2. Germans are ageing fast. Most Germans have no idea how problematic this is going to be, or they try to ignore it. Just to give you an idea: The last 10 years before Covid were one of the most prosperous Germany ever experienced. We had millions of people more at work than optimists had estimated. Yet our pension system already run up a deficite of 100bn each year. And now we have Covid and the Baby Boomers are going to retire. There are estimates that by 2030/35, the pension system will have a deficite of 300bn, which would be around 75% of the federal budget and those are by no means the most pessimistic ones. Other European countries will experience similar problems, which will add additional strain to the currency. You can not keep adding debt to a fast ageing economy that has not its' own currency, or else you will end up with a disaster. Things might have looked somewhat different without Covid and other costly matters like the refugee crisis, but things are now how they are. This is going to be the defining problem for the German economy past 2025.

This will of course also have huge implications for the EU and its' decision making. The times when compromises were achieved via German cheque book diplomacy will soon be over and we will likely see more open conflict over funds and ressource allocation.

Edited by Zarastro on Sep 29th 2021 at 6:17:28 PM

To insist that one party's fiscal plans are the only correct ones for addressing future demographic shifts is, however, insisting that you can see the future. Economics is an inexact mess. Identifying that there is a problem does not mean that your chosen solution is backed up.

A party of tax cuts, selling publicly owned property, and low government spending overall seems catastrophically ill-equipped to handle the notion of future spending increases you won't get away with cutting. It's the classic line "If we do this, it will stimulate the economy, and make up for the tax cuts", only the tax returns strangely don't manifest, and the hands-off attitude makes it much easier to avoid taxes.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the idea of austerity is pretty universal, and not specific to any one country.

Secretary at Stutthof Nazi death camp goes on trial aged 96

[Pedantic, I know, but Stutthof was a concentration camp rather than an extermination camp, albeit a pretty deadly one among the first]

More of a show trial, honestly. I doubt she'll see a single day in jail.

I thought the terms have become pretty much interchangeable, at least in the context of WWII?

Yuck. A show trial is a trial that is set up to produce one outcome and present it. The war ciminal trials are not show trials, outside of Nazi apologetic propaganda that is. And using a loaded term in a personal dictionary fashion doesn't work, either. Don't do it.

At that age, there is little point in sending someone to jail anyway. It may not be a show trial, but I think it is more of a symbolic trial. It's not about the punishment at this point, but about the conviction itself.

Yeah a symbolic trial and a show trial are very different things. The former is a proper legal process done in large part to make a legal point rather than to keep someone from doing further harm, while the later is a rigged ‘trial’ designed only to legitimise hatred for someone disliked for reasons other than the ones they are nominally on trial for.

Edited by Silasw on Sep 30th 2021 at 11:52:49 AM

She won't go to jail, but she will be forced to confront the past she had been running from and all the lies she made up for others and herself will be pointed out to her. That is not much, but is something.

Did they catch her? Afair I saw yesterday a headline that she didn't show up to trial and is currently on the lam

"96 year old Nazi secretary on the lam" wasn't news I expected to hear today.

Me neither.

AP article on it

She has been caught.

Edited by 3of4 on Oct 1st 2021 at 2:03:09 PM

To be honest, it would be interesting to see what kind of sentencing a judge would deem approbiate in her case, even disregarding her old age, because cases like hers are those our justice system struggles the most with. She is undeniably guilty to some extent of having supported countless murders, yet she was partly underage, was socialized in a dictatorship that encouraged its' citizen to view those murders as justified and necessary and might have been shielded from the worst excesses. Furthermore everyone in authority she knew supported the crimes as well. She also lived by allcounts a law-abiding life afterwards. How can you do justice to both the crime and those mitigating circumstances?

The most similar case to her I know of is the one of Oskar Gröning, the "bookkeeper of Ausschwitz". However he was a member of the SS, was a full grown adult and confessed knowledge of the gas chambers, torture and other brutalities. He would have gone to jail if his lawyer had not been able to drag out his arrest after his sentencing until he died. In her case, even if she is deemed fit to go to jail, she might only receive a suspended prison sentence.

Edited by Zarastro on Oct 1st 2021 at 3:21:13 PM

She might have made the ‘choice’ to do what she when very young, but she made the choice to flee from her trial in her current state.

A repentant Nazi is one thing, an unrepentant Nazi who actively evades the justice system is another.

Has she expressed Nazi views in her old age? The articles I have read did not mention this.

Personally I see no reason to give her the benefit of the doubt, especially since she did just try to ditch the trial.

I’m simply speculating based on the fact that she attempted to flee from her trial.

Assuming that she didn’t simply forget she was on trial, which at her age is a real possibility.

Giving her the benefit of doubt for what? Her attempt to flee has demonstrated that she is able to stand trial (and later go to jail if so judged) but beyond that?

I doubt she forgot, considering that prior to this she outright said she didn't want to go to court. Her age led the authorities to believe she wasn't a flight risk though.

Yeah...

Also, the point here isn't that she's an unrepentant Nazi. The point here is that she aided and abetted Nazi crimes. Whether she did it out of deep conviction or out of mere careerism isn't important, that she helped them with their misdeeds is.

She is guilty off that no doubt, the question however is what is the appropiate punishment? Given the midigating conditions that apply to her case and historic precedence, I'd argue that a suspended sentence would be justified.

Edited by Zarastro on Oct 1st 2021 at 8:43:23 PM

That's for the judges to figure out, I'd say.

A suspended sentence seems reasonable under the circumstances. And she may have fled, but she clearly did not get far, so she is probably still a low flight risk.