- Nowadays, Germany is touted for her “exemplary repentance”. This Jewish-serving German repentance is weaponized by Jews who blame Poland for not “coming to terms with the past” for her imagined “complicity in the Holocaust.”
- Of course, Germany “repented”. She had to! Germany was utterly defeated, divided, in ruins, and occupied by foreign powers (MacDonald 2008).
- The Nuremberg Trials were structured to minimize “victor’s justice” by symbolically punishing only a few top leaders. The Germans took advantage of this, proclaiming themselves innocent and adopting the evasive position that only their top leaders (“the Nazis”) were guilty (Savelsberg 2021, p. 164). The exculpatory construct of “ordinary Germans” and “Nazis” was born.
- The new German leaders, besides being forced by the Allies, “voluntarily” repudiated Nazism because it otherwise would have been impossible for Germany to rejoin the international community (Stangneth 2014, p. 143).
- Soon after the war, we saw the emergence of Jewish-serving German repentance. Konrad Adenauer took the initiative, and “broke the ice” with the Jews (Feldman 1984, pp. 39-41), which eventuated in the Luxembourg Agreement in 1952.
- At least until 1953, eight years after the war, most Germans thought that there was more good than evil in National Socialism (Chernow 1993).
- According to Feldman (1984, p. 177), Israel toned down her attacks on Germans, in the wake of the Luxembourg Agreement, because “you do not bite the hand that feeds you.” It is elementary psychology! No Jewish-German conspiracy is needed to make it so. The facts are clear: Germany bought Jewish forgiveness!
- Starting with the 1950s, Germany sent vast amounts of military and industrial equipment to Israel, alongside the reparations. There was massive German investment in Israeli science, and much more (Sharrett 2011). How could this not buy even more Jewish favor?
- Israel was largely dependent upon on Germany, and the German-provided equipment played a decisive role in the Israeli wars against her Arab neighbors (Marwecki 2020). Jewish-serving German repentance bore fruit.
- David Ben Gurion changed a prayer that was about to be said for the Jewish victims. He substituted “Nazis” for “Germany”, and Konrad Adenauer thanked Ben Gurion for the change (Vogel 1969). So now the Jewish favor was actualized, and the Nazis became de-Germanized.
- Jewish writer Moshe Menuhin (1978) called David Ben Gurion a “cynical politician” for publicly absolving the Germans of guilt in the wake of the Luxembourg Agreement, all in exchange for monetary payments and goods.
- In May 1966, Konrad Adenauer visited Israel. Prime Minister Levi Eschkol declared that Jews remember their enemies as well as their friends, and that he put Adenauer in the category of friends “not the least because of the reparations payments” (Assman 2011, p. 59). The German purchase of Jewish forgiveness was complete.
- Jewish-serving German repentance was more symbol than substance, and of no moral credit to Germany. Besides being compelled, German reparations to Israel (Luxembourg Agreement) were not sacrificial: They never hurt Germany financially (Feldman 1984, p. 84).
- Konrad Adenauer plainly stated that failure to ratify the Luxembourg Agreement would have harmed Germany’s reputation and would have prevented her full integration into the western world (Lavy 1996, p. 11). The message is clear: Jews count in international politics. And Poles do not.
- The dichotomy between “Nazis” and “Germans”, a component of Jewish-serving German repentance, pretends that the Nazis were not “real” Germans (Confino 2006). They most certainly were.
- For the longest time, Germans externalized their guilt by blaming Hitler (Buruma 1994, p. 259). Or they blamed Hitler and Himmler, who were conveniently dead (Teschke 1998).
- Recently, Erika Steinbach has revived the popular 1950s trope of Germans as victims of Nazism (Margalit 2010, pp. 235-236). This is a masterful role reversal: The defeated aggressor nation now pretends that she was the victim.
- Nazism was no aberration in German history, as is often said. The German lust for ruling over other peoples, including even an exterminatory ideation, did not begin with Hitler or Nazism! It had deep roots in German thinking, such as: Ludwig Woltmann (1871-1907), Ernst Moritz Arndt (1769-1860), Heinrich von Treitschke (1834-1896), Houston Stewart Chamberlain (1855-1927), Paul de Lagarde (1827-1891), and Julius Langbehn (1851-1907) (Weiss 1995).
- What trials? Fully 95% of the Nazi German defendants accused of war crimes, or crimes against humanity, by Allied and German courts, were acquitted (Wustenberg 2017, p. 36. See also Arendt 2007, and Tetens 1961). Those few sentences that were handed down were “scandalously lenient” (Teschke 1998).
- Sometime between 1958 and 1963, the majority of German people opined that all further trials of German leaders (“the Nazis”) be discontinued (Margalit 2010, p. 106). They proposed to draw a line (Gruba Kreska) under the crimes of the Third Reich. So, first the German people dodged blame by wishing all the blame to fall only on their leaders (“the Nazis”). And now the German people wanted no blame to fall on their leaders (“the Nazis”) either. That way, nobody is guilty. What a farcical repentance!
- During the People’s Day of Mourning (May 8, 1985), German President von Weizsacker mentioned the Poles alongside the Jews. But when his speech was made into a plaque, the Poles were omitted, conveniently for “lack of space” (Margalit 2010, p. 227, 236). Jewish-serving German repentance was at it again.
- In the HISTORIKERSTREIT (Historians’ Dispute) of the late 1980’s, some Judeocentric German scholars successfully bullied the minority of Judeo-nonconformist scholars. It was a win-win situation for the Jews. The primacy of the Holocaust was re-affirmed, as was the notion that only Jewish victims deserve compensation (Baldwin 1990, pp. 49-50).
- The HISTORIKERSTREIT confessedly made it easier for Germans to circumvent the non-Jewish victims of Nazi Germany (Evans 1989, p. 12). As a bonus, Communist crimes were deliberately marginalized (Evans 1989, p. 87).
- Angela Merkel, visiting Israel in 2008, and echoing other German intellectuals, called the Holocaust a Zivilizationsbruch, that is, a rupture in civilization (Feldman 2012). Only Jews are worthy of this fantastic (if not racist) title: It is never said of anyone else! So, in this victim hierarchy, the Nazi German murder of millions of Poles is not important enough to qualify as a rupture in civilization. No wonder that Germans feel a moral duty to keep paying the Jews, but not the Poles.
- The lasting German memory of WWII is limited to the Jews’ Holocaust. It is not even the Blitzkrieg, Dresden, or the Eastern Front. (Buruma 1994, p. 149). How much less is it the Polish victims?
- There is an expansive Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, with much smaller separate and unequal monuments to the Gypsies and gays (Dekel 2013). A monument to the Poles does not even exist: It is all talk and empty promises.
- German historian Christian Maier (quoted by Knowlton 1993) openly stated the obvious: Non-Jewish victims of the Third Reich are secondary to the Jews and their Holocaust.
- Young German Jews see Jewish-serving German repentance as a form of virtue signaling and a memory theater: Today’s Germans engage in a ritual of self-congratulation in that Germany is a peaceful nation (Rhein-Fischer and Mensing 2022).
- Germany is indeed a peaceful nation, if only because Germany can achieve her rule over Europe through non-military means (the European Union), but Germany is not just. She is decidedly partial to the Jewish victims: Jewish-serving German repentance rules.
Source: JewsandPolesDatabase.org
Arendt. 2007. The Jewish Writings, p. 492
Assman. 2011. Memory and Political Change, p. 59
Baldwin. 1990. Reworking the Past, pp. 49-50
Buruma. 1994. The Wages of Guilt, p. 149, 259
Chernow. 1993. The Warburgs, p. 594
Confino. 2006. Germany as a Culture of Remembrance, p. 245
Dekel. 2013. Mediation at the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin, p. 46
Evans. 1989. In Hitler’s Shadow, p. 12, 87
Feldman. 1984. The Special Relationship Between West Germany and Israel, pp. 39-41, p. 90, 177
Feldman. 2012. Germany’s Foreign Policy of Reconciliation, p. 177
Knowlton 1993. Forever in the Shadow of Hitler, p. 24
Lavy. 1996. Germany and Israel, p. 11
Lower and Rossi. 2017. Lessons and Legacies XII, p. 418-419
MacDonald. 2008. Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide, p. 55
Margalit. 2010. Guilt, Suffering, and Memory, p. 106, 227, 235-236
Marwecki. 2020. Germany and Israel, pp. 59-on
Menuhin. 1978. The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time, p. 474
Pendas. 2006. The Frankfort Auschwitz Trial, 1963-1965, p. 13
Rhein-Fischer and Mensing. 2022. Memory Laws in Germany, p. 114
Savelsberg. 2021. Knowing About Genocide, p. 164
Sharett. 2011. The Reparations Controversy, p. 381
Stangneth. 2014. Eichmann Before Jerusalem, p. 143
Teschke. 1998. Hitler’s Legacy, pp. 313-314
Tetens. 1961. The New Germany and the Old Nazis, pp. 190-191
Vogel. 1969. The German Path to Israel, pp. 120-121
Weiss. 1995. Ideology of Death, many pages.
Wustenberg. 2017. Civil Society and Memory in Postwar Germany, p. 36
