Merkel Challenges the Pope on Holocaust Denial

Quote :

German Chancellor Angela Merkel entered the row over the Catholic church and Holocaust denials today by demanding the pope give a “very clear” rejection of them.

Ms Merkel said that she “does not believe” there has been “sufficient” clarification after the re-instatement of British-born bishop Richard Williamson who has questioned whether six million Jews were gassed in Nazi concentration camps.

The German-born pope last week expressed his “full and indisputable solidarity” with Jews and warned against any denial of the horror of the Holocaust but several leading German bishops have criticised his decision and called for Bishop William’s rehabilitation to be revoked

. (Breaking News today)The record of the Church in relation to facism was not good, not ignoring some good individuals who went against the tide.

I find it refreshing to see the German head of state take on the issue of holocaust denial with the Pope. The reinstatement of Richard Williamson was a signal of approval of or at best acceptance for anti-semitism at a time when xenophobia and scapegoating are real dangers to society, because of the fear and anger that the economic crash is causing.

Whilst obviously in total disagreement with any form of holocaust denial or anything like that I am not entiely sure that the reinstatement of Richard Williamson was a signal of approval for anti-semitism. It obviously had the effect of that but really, the current Pope seems intent on bringing back into the fold all the disperate groups who have had difficulties with the Vatican. He seems to be applying this to all such groups - foolish indeed.

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

German Chancellor Angela Merkel entered the row over the Catholic church and Holocaust denials today by demanding the pope give a “very clear” rejection of them.

Ms Merkel said that she “does not believe” there has been “sufficient” clarification after the re-instatement of British-born bishop Richard Williamson who has questioned whether six million Jews were gassed in Nazi concentration camps.

The German-born pope last week expressed his “full and indisputable solidarity” with Jews and warned against any denial of the horror of the Holocaust but several leading German bishops have criticised his decision and called for Bishop William’s rehabilitation to be revoked

. (Breaking News today)The record of the Church in relation to facism was not good, not ignoring some good individuals who went against the tide.

I find it refreshing to see the German head of state take on the issue of holocaust denial with the Pope. The reinstatement of Richard Williamson was a signal of approval of or at best acceptance for anti-semitism at a time when xenophobia and scapegoating are real dangers to society, because of the fear and anger that the economic crash is causing.

The record of Germany is a tad worse, possibly... The reinstatement of the Pius crowd is not an endorsement of anti-semitism, that's absurd.

The German guilt-complex in relation to the War and the Holocaust is always a good laugh, the way they feel they can go around policing everyone else's opinions on it, even the opinions of those who fought against the Nazis, is, shall we say, ironic. The Germans try to take over Europe, try to exterminate entire populations, try to enslave others, cause tens of millions of deaths, leave Europe in ruins and bankrupt, and then go around lecturing everyone else on how they should react to the free (though ridiculous and offensive) opinions of others about what they themselves did. You vill obey!

I too dislike the german-lecturing attitude, although it should be seen in the global context where plurality of opinion is under threat from a single politically correct world-view. Think of Spain and Belgium attempting to denounce pinochet and the israeli's. We all subscribe, it seems to a UN with common principals and if you think tthough to its logical conclusion then the germans can hardly be otherwise. They are dammned if they and are dammned if they dont basically.

So sorry but you cant have it both ways with the germans. Either they become cynically unrepetent like the Japanese or the germans pre WWII or they stand at the forefront denouncing racism/fascism/anti-semitism when they see it. The germans are quite well aware that it can be easy to fall into the latter position, which is definitely where they do not want to be, much as some would just love to see them in position. Great cover these krauts!

It should also be remembered that during the long course of history and leaving the 3rd Reich and some aspects of the Bismarkian/Wlhelmine regime aisde, that the Germans themselves have been more the victims than the aggressors. German history really is one long tragedy from the 16th to the 19th century as the nation played battlefield to the war games of France, England, Sweden, Austria and Russia(1/3 of the population wiped out in the 30 years war for example). If you know your history then you will know that there are plenty of other countries with as much if not more blood on their hands. Far more galling for you to listen to a german lecturing about anti-semitism is to for a german to have to listen to some of these smug hypocrits cynically their own victimhood at the hands of the Nazis in order to cover the shame of their own nations crimes.

I don't know much about the "Pius crowd" (although Williamson I know denies there were gas chambers) but I do know Germany and have lived there.
Respvblica, your post is a good example of the virtue of a long and broad view. The punitive Versailles Treaty and the impoverishment of Germany that resulted also contributed to the rise of facism.

The half million Jewish people in Germany who were killed or emigrated after the Nazis came to power (leaving a remainder of less than 20,000) were Germans. They were full citizens, mainly urban and provided the flower of German science and the arts - an unbelievable roll call if you look at the names here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_Jews

Hitler came to power without a majority vote and communists and socialists were put in camps and many were killed. Characterising all Germans as the same in a cartoon cut out way is not helpful or enlightening. The Germans were divided. The current Pope is a German former member of the Hitler Youth paramilitary organisation, but it was mandatory to join and his biography says he avoided participation as much as possible. However I would have expected that this history would have made him more careful in this issue and it seems he didn't consult with the Vatican's Jewish experts. There is apparently division in the Vatican over this, according to Patsy McGarry.

I agree with Res - damned if you do and damned if you don't: except I think in this case clear opposition to anti-semitism is the principled and the right thing for the German Head of State to do.

We may not see it here in Ireland in part because our Jewish population has nearly disappeared, but anti-semitism is on the rise in Europe and the crash creates big dangers of these divisions being fostered for political gain. The various groups that Ganley is linking to are right wing Catholic groups of which several are openly anti-semitic. Its not an issue of history.

Yes, Jewish population is in serious decline here. Mainly due to marraige outside of the community and emigration to the United Kingdom. There used to be four Jewish families living on my road - none now.

It's not their views I oppose, it's the manner displayed here. As a Catholic who grew up on a street in Britain that was bombed by the Germans (before I was born, admittedly), there's just something that sticks in the craw about them admonishing others on this subject...

toxic avenger wrote:

It's not their views I oppose, it's the manner displayed here. As a Catholic who grew up on a street in Britain that was bombed by the Germans (before I was born, admittedly), there's just something that sticks in the craw about them admonishing others on this subject...

Is it just an emotional reaction? I grew up in a bombed town too, and always confused Germans and germs in my head as a child , and had nightmares about dodging bombs in the playground. Our school fire alarm was the old air raid siren, very very loud and spooky. Perhaps if I hadn't lived in Germany for a while, I would feel the same as you. But in reality, there isn't any they.

Raymond Deane of Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (for Chair of the IPSC) said this recently (he spends part of each year in Germany):

Quote :

MC: Coming forward to 2008 and coverage of the Naqba, Bush’s speech in the Israeli Knesset on the 60th anniversary seemed calculated to provoke in so far as there didn’t appear to be one word of consideration for the Palestinians in it. What did you think of media coverage of the Naqba in general?



RD: The coverage was practically non-existent. I was in Germany for that and Bush’s speech was nothing in comparison to that of Angela Merkel – that was an obscenity – a real obscenity. I published an article at the time about it in Electronic Intifada, where I write a lot of stuff nowadays. It was translated into German and reprinted in a number of German sources. It said in effect that the Germans, having scapegoated the Jews in the 1930s, are now happily scapegoating the Palestinians because of what they, the Germans, did to the Jews. There is no self-consciousness about this whatsoever among politicians, but there is an immense amount among ordinary people. Many Germans are remarkably well-informed about the Middle East, although their media are worse than ours when it comes to reporting what happens in Palestine.

http://www.mediabite.org/article_Will-Palestine-always-be-the-issue----Part-1_185609237.html

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

It's not their views I oppose, it's the manner displayed here. As a Catholic who grew up on a street in Britain that was bombed by the Germans (before I was born, admittedly), there's just something that sticks in the craw about them admonishing others on this subject...

Is it just an emotional reaction? I grew up in a bombed town too, and always confused Germans and germs in my head as a child , and had nightmares about dodging bombs in the playground. Our school fire alarm was the old air raid siren, very very loud and spooky. Perhaps if I hadn't lived in Germany for a while, I would feel the same as you. But in reality, there isn't any they.

Here here.

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

It's not their views I oppose, it's the manner displayed here. As a Catholic who grew up on a street in Britain that was bombed by the Germans (before I was born, admittedly), there's just something that sticks in the craw about them admonishing others on this subject...

Is it just an emotional reaction? I grew up in a bombed town too, and always confused Germans and germs in my head as a child , and had nightmares about dodging bombs in the playground. Our school fire alarm was the old air raid siren, very very loud and spooky. Perhaps if I hadn't lived in Germany for a while, I would feel the same as you. But in reality, there isn't any they.

You're absolutely right, CF. Toxic's use and italicising of the word them and his visitation of guilt for the holocaust and the Second World War and all that entailed on the German people, every 80 million or so of them, is deeply flawed.

There was a very strong opposition to the rise of the Nazis in 1930's Germany which involved many members of my own political family in the SPD. The Nazi response to the opposition of socialists and social democrats (amongst many, many other political opponents) was savage and brutal. To deny latter-day Germans the right to speak out on anti-Semitism and holocaust-denial on the basis that they somehow continue to share the guilt for the Nazis and their crimes is truly a chilling and unworthy view.

I am not visiting guilt upon anyone who wasn't around then. But, Merkel is speaking as Chancellor of Germany, as executive head of State. There is a 'them'. If you think there isn't then you must accept the logical reductio ad absurdum of your position (and that extends a very long way indeed). Either way, I stand by my position that Merkel, in her capacity of Germany's political leader, should pull her neck in. Let others criticise the Pope, merited or otherwise, on this issue, but she should keep a graceful silence. The fact that it sticks in my craw is an emotional reaction, of course, but not one devoid of logical reasoning...

I agree with the idea that Merkel is entitled to speak out on this issue. I don't think the present German administration should be required to stand over the wrongs of the past, which although recent enough in the grand scheme of things, occurred during a regime of an entirely different nature.

However, I apply the same to these flawed notions people throw about wanting the Queen of England to apologise for the Irish famine. Is there anyone hear who disagrees with me? ie. someone who thinks that Merkel should be entitled to depart from the past because it is not her doing but equally thinks modern Britain should be apologising left right and centre.

Just interested as a point of debate.

Chilling indeed. Did you hear of the fate of the tyskbarn (german children) born to German fathers in postwar Norway? They were pronounced genetically defective by Norways leading doctor and subject to a lifetime of torture and humiliation. Many were sent to asylums and homes for retarded people and are only now recovering and getting compensation. These people had absolutely nothing to do with Hitler and suffered. Similar stories abound in other parts of Europe.
Then we had Dr. Goldhagen get away with the claim that the Germans were Hitler's willing executioners - anti-semitism was apparantly part of their culural genetic makeup apparently. That german monster needed watching!

Meanwhile, and with the world concentrated on German historical crimes, new state crimes were committed, invasions and genoicides, houses were bombed, people were maimed and tortured, but we could all console ourselves that it would never be as bad as the Holocaust. The germans, like the Jews ironically became the new scapegoat.

Dealing with the Holocaust has given Germany in my opinion a moral edge over its more proud neighbors, who still remember fondly back to old imperialist days or even imagine new ones. I'm suprised at the Pope though as he is someone who I thought understood the situation very well. Well done Merkl.

johnfás wrote:

I agree with the idea that Merkel is entitled to speak out on this issue. I don't think the present German administration should be required to stand over the wrongs of the past, which although recent enough in the grand scheme of things, occurred during a regime of an entirely different nature.

However, I apply the same to these flawed notions people throw about wanting the Queen of England to apologise for the Irish famine. Is there anyone hear who disagrees with me? ie. someone who thinks that Merkel should be entitled to depart from the past because it is not her doing but equally thinks modern Britain should be apologising left right and centre.

Just interested as a point of debate.

I think that it would be good for England and the English to come to terms with the darker moments of their own history such as the famine. An apology from the Queen though wont mean anything. We need a Spielberg to make a film about the famine to reach into their hearts, though expect a robust rejection from the English. They didnt even take Braveheart well.

Of course when you say "the English" you refer to the people of the nineteenth century. It should be noted that the average person in England in the 19th century was deprived of media comment on the issue, the average person in England was not literate. It should also be noted that if you were female you could not vote for the system which ran the country. If you were a man it was unlikely that you could vote for the system which governed you until the Reform Act of 1867 which granted voting rights to much of the working class, though this was not completely extended until the Representation of People Act 1884, though even after this Act only about 40% of males were entitled to vote, owing to various property related voting restrictions.

Given the above what you are really asking is the Institution of Government to apologise, given that the "people" did not actually have much say in the institution. Well, I would venture to suggest that the Institution of Government of modern Britain is as far removed from that of the 1840s as is the modern German Government from that of the Third Reich. Thus I conclude that the two situations should be treated in a broadly similar manner.

toxic avenger wrote:

I am not visiting guilt upon anyone who wasn't around then. But, Merkel is speaking as Chancellor of Germany, as executive head of State. There is a 'them'. If you think there isn't then you must accept the logical reductio ad absurdum of your position (and that extends a very long way indeed). Either way, I stand by my position that Merkel, in her capacity of Germany's political leader, should pull her neck in. Let others criticise the Pope, merited or otherwise, on this issue, but she should keep a graceful silence. The fact that it sticks in my craw is an emotional reaction, of course, but not one devoid of logical reasoning...

Of course you are right and there is a them but in the sense you ascribe to it, it is a relative concept and not a reality. And as much as there is a them, there is also an us, which includes Germans and others, including ourselves. There is not a guilty German people alive today, that should keep quiet about anti semitism. If there was, they would have a greater obligation than anyone to do so.

Ireland turned Jewish refugees away on the basis of an antisemitic outlook. Should nobody here now say anything about antisemitism?

johnfás wrote:

Of course when you say "the English" you refer to the people of the nineteenth century. It should be noted that the average person in England in the 19th century was deprived of media comment on the issue, the average person in England was not literate. It should also be noted that if you were female you could not vote for the system which ran the country. If you were a man it was unlikely that you could vote for the system which governed you until the Reform Act of 1867 which granted voting rights to much of the working class, though this was not completely extended until the Representation of People Act 1884, though even after this Act only about 40% of males were entitled to vote, owing to various property related voting restrictions.

Given the above what you are really asking is the Institution of Government to apologise, given that the "people" did not actually have much say in the institution. Well, I would venture to suggest that the Institution of Government of modern Britain is as far removed from that of the 1840s as is the modern German Government from that of the Third Reich. Thus I conclude that the two situations should be treated in a broadly similar manner.

I profoundly disagree with that. Not least because the event in question is still well within living memory for many people - on both sides of the war. Angela Merkel as the head of state has duty domestically and internationally to reflect these realities in a diplomatic and sensitive way. As Raymond Deane has said (above), there appears to be some sort of conviction among the political class in Germany to expunge the sins of the past by going to extremes of support for Israel that many Germany people are embarrassed by. The paralells are uncomfortably obvious: Merkel is now prepared to endorse the same sort ot treatment of the Palestinians as was meted out to the Jews.

"Chancellor Merkel's speech, in short, is a compendium of banalities, lies, omissions, threats, and sycophantic bunkum. Yet it earned her a standing ovation in the Knesset, and its reception in Germany has been little short of ecstatic. Here, for example, is Thorsten Schmitz in the respected Sueddeutsche Zeitung: "Israel wouldn't exist without the Germans. The state of the Jews is the answer to the Holocaust ... Every further year that Israel exists is ... metaphorically speaking a victory over Hitler ... Angela Merkel did not wish to take her place in the line of well-wishers [on Israel's 60th birthday], but wished to lead it." Once again, we find the poisonous blend of historical half-truth -- the move towards establishing a Jewish state in Palestine began decades before the Holocaust, although the latter undoubtedly hastened its establishment -- with silence about the crimes attendant upon the foundation of that state, its maintenance and its inexorable expansion."

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9409.shtml

My opinion that Merkel doesn't have to grovel for the sins of the Third Reich does not equate to an opinion that she should necessarily support Israeli foreign policy. The two are mutually distinguishable.

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

I am not visiting guilt upon anyone who wasn't around then. But, Merkel is speaking as Chancellor of Germany, as executive head of State. There is a 'them'. If you think there isn't then you must accept the logical reductio ad absurdum of your position (and that extends a very long way indeed). Either way, I stand by my position that Merkel, in her capacity of Germany's political leader, should pull her neck in. Let others criticise the Pope, merited or otherwise, on this issue, but she should keep a graceful silence. The fact that it sticks in my craw is an emotional reaction, of course, but not one devoid of logical reasoning...

Of course you are right and there is a them but in the sense you ascribe to it, it is a relative concept and not a reality. And as much as there is a them, there is also an us, which includes Germans and others, including ourselves. There is not a guilty German people alive today, that should keep quiet about anti semitism. If there was, they would have a greater obligation than anyone to do so.

Ireland turned Jewish refugees away on the basis of an antisemitic outlook. Should nobody here now say anything about antisemitism?

The Pope was and is not an anti-Semitic. The Pope is trying to heal a rift with a breakaway section of the Church, he thought that more important than the awkwardness that one of the Bishops invested by that group is an Anglican convert with some nutjob views. That's a fair enough judgment, agree or disagree as you might. The German Chancellor stuck her oar in, and did so mostly because of her country's guilt-complex, which they think gives them the right to lecture everyone else, even when they aren't necessarily right.

I don't believe, by the way, that an anti-Semitic outlook led to the turning away of refugees. I think this country (and Northern Ireland, by the way) was mean-spirited and un-Christian in their approach, but it wasn't inspired by the Jewishness of the refugees...

johnfás wrote:

My opinion that Merkel doesn't have to grovel for the sins of the Third Reich does not equate to an opinion that she should necessarily support Israeli foreign policy. The two are mutually distinguishable.

Of course she should be as apologetic as is appropriate - the victims of the German state are still alive and living with horrific memories. As the head of that state Merkel has a duty to make amends for that whenever it is appropriate of course - so long is she is not compounding the crimes of the country's recent past by endorsing the same crimes elsewhere.

Toxic - wrt the Pope. I was speaking with someone who knows a lot about him - I think knows him personally, in fact - and she told me that the idea that he has Nazi sympathies could not be more absurd. Seemingly he had a brother who was disabled which was a very dangerous state of affairs at that time. His parents built a speial alcove in a wall in their house where he used to have to sit with him in silence hours at a time when they were expecting Nazi soldiers to come round - which was pretty much every day. It certainly left him in no doubt about what they were like.

Anti-Semitism is something which is quite prevalent as an underlying feature of a small, but still existing, minority of people. That is something which simply has to be recognised. I know people who I would suspect are anti-semitic, though it clearly does not extend to anything like Nazi Germany.

A part of Irish society in the 1940s would naturally have been anti-semitic, such feelings were prevalent across Europe. Let us not forget that the war was one against Hitler, not one necessarily for the protection of the Jews. There was a purposeful attempt to try and limit the number of, in particular, Jewish children, into Ireland during and immediately after WW2, that is a matter of fact. However, this was eventually overruled by Dev who did allow them in. Equally Devalera's Constitution of 1937 included an explicit recognition of the place of the Jewish Community in Irish Society. It is a complex situation, but Ireland was no more antisemitic than alot of places and to this day it remains as anti-semitic as alot of places.

Aragon, I don't for one moment think that Merkel can solve the problems of racism, whether anti-semiticism or against the Palestinians. However Merkel is hardly unique amongst heads of state to have kow towed to the Israeli government. Virtually every one of them joined in a cosy dinner with Tzipi Livni less than a week after the cease fire.

Wikipaedia says the Pope had a cousin with Downs' syndrome who was murdered in the name of eugenics. No one said the Pope was anti-semitic. Williamson clearly is.

Im not a member of any Church and tbh the idea that "nut jobs" are welcome in the Church leadership not a surprise, but I would imagine that many practicing Catholics would not be happy about it.

johnfás wrote:

Of course when you say "the English" you refer to the people of the nineteenth century. It should be noted that the average person in England in the 19th century was deprived of media comment on the issue, the average person in England was not literate. It should also be noted that if you were female you could not vote for the system which ran the country. If you were a man it was unlikely that you could vote for the system which governed you until the Reform Act of 1867 which granted voting rights to much of the working class, though this was not completely extended until the Representation of People Act 1884, though even after this Act only about 40% of males were entitled to vote, owing to various property related voting restrictions.

Given the above what you are really asking is the Institution of Government to apologise, given that the "people" did not actually have much say in the institution. Well, I would venture to suggest that the Institution of Government of modern Britain is as far removed from that of the 1840s as is the modern German Government from that of the Third Reich. Thus I conclude that the two situations should be treated in a broadly similar manner.

However if the Germans started going on about how proud they were of the military achievement of conquering western Europe in a couple of months in 1940, you would surely have a problem with that. If England is actively using past military glories to augment patriotism in their country, then it follows that they should accept and the darker moments also.
Another option is to leave history to the historians and get on with life, but we all know that is never going to happen. Its too valuable a tool.