Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Britain's Prince Harry apologizes after pictured in Nazi uniform despite topic change

This is topic Britain's Prince Harry apologizes after pictured in Nazi uniform despite topic change in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003823

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-12-2005, 07:24 PM:

Would have been funnier if he had walked around that party yelling at people, "NO SOUP FOR YOU!!" [Smile]

But anyway... What the hell was he thinking?!?!?!

Copyrights are an illusion, so here's the article:
-----

Britain's Prince Harry apologizes after pictured in Nazi uniform

LONDON (AFP) - Britain's Prince Harry apologized after he was pictured on the front page of The Sun newspaper in a Nazi soldier's uniform which he wore to a fancy dress party.

Thursday's edition of the Sun features Prince Harry, younger son of Britain's Prince Charles and the late Princess Diana, wearing the uniform with an armband showing a swastika, emblem of the Nazi Party.

A spokeswoman for the royal family who was contacted by AFP read a statement of apology.

"I am very sorry if I caused any offense or embarrassment to anyone. It was a poor choice of costume and I apologize," Prince Harry said in the statement.

A source close to the royal family said the party took place sometime after January 1.

Doug Henderson, Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne North and a former armed forces minister, said Prince Harry should not now be allowed to become a British Army officer.

"After the revelations this evening I don't think this young man is suitable for Sandhurst," the army officer training school, he said.

"If it was anyone else the application wouldn't be considered. It should be withdrawn immediately," he said.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews welcomed the apology, according to Sky television.

"We're gratified that the prince has apologized. The incident was in bad taste, especially in the runup to the holocaust memorial day, which the royal family will play a leading role in commemorating," it said.

Holocaust memorial day is marked on January 27, the day in 1945 when the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz, the most infamous of the Nazi World War II concentration camps.

[ 01-12-2005, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-12-2005, 07:36 PM:

Guess what's wrong with this topic, Thomas. After that, fix it.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-12-2005, 08:20 PM:

Sorry, dunno.

If it's because of a teaser title, it's not. It's in German.

Unless you mean that by mentioning Nazi, you can tell who I voted for which makes this thread political....

I dunno. I'll either take Gilbert Goddfried for the block, or I'd like to buy a vowel.

=TMP=

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-12-2005, 08:30 PM:

I checked your German and even then it is still a teaser title. However unless you haven't noticed, the language of this forum is English.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-12-2005, 09:43 PM:

Aw Brad, why did you go and edit it for him? I was just gonna lock it.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 01-12-2005, 10:18 PM:

This gives me another reason to ban him in the future, of course. [evil]

You can always lock it though.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-12-2005, 10:34 PM:

Leave the thread...lock Tom up... in handcuffs of course... [Wink]

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 01-13-2005, 12:49 AM:

Are there no pics to prove this story is true? I want to see. [Razz]

Phil,
good idea about chaining up Tom. When you do that, be sure to take pics.

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 01-13-2005, 03:22 AM:

BBC online have the picture here

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-13-2005, 04:26 AM:

quote: Thomas Procyk
What the hell was he thinking?!?!?!

He wasn't thinking. Just like he didn't think when he whacked a photographer over the head with his own camera, threw up out of the window of his limo in Central London one afternoon in full view of tourists, workers and everyone and got blind drunk and trashed a pub after some polo match once. The guy's a yob; not thinking appears to be his problem, which it makes it a tad scary that he's about to start training to be an Army officer... [Eek!]

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-13-2005, 04:43 AM:

quote:
"Prince Harry has apologised for any offence or embarrassment he has caused. He realises it was a poor choice of costume."

Like the knight in "Last Crusade" said: "He chose...poorly."
That's what happens if people keep marrying each other's cousins for generations. Particularly "poor" choice of costume considering there wouldn't even be a British monarchy to produce degenerate princes if FDR hadn't helped them out back then.

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 01-13-2005, 05:03 AM:

but this was a private party at a friend's, wasn't it? was he expecting to end up on the front page of the sun? of course, it's probably rule #1 for a royal to always behave as if expecting to be photographed, but it's not like it was a public appearance.

and the whole idea of a costume party is that you dress up as something that you're not. the theme was "colonial and native", which seems like dangerous ground no matter which way you slice it. well ok, i guess william pulled it off with the lion.

remember that photo of william trying on the crown and uh... royal robe thingy with nothing else on? that looked pretty darn embarrassing. but he thought he was in private, apparently. sometimes they let their guard down. maybe they're people.

carl

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 01-13-2005, 06:43 AM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
That's what happens if people keep marrying each other's cousins for generations.

Or maybe it's something hereditary from that Teutonic totty they keep messing with.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-13-2005, 07:06 AM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
Particularly "poor" choice of costume considering there wouldn't even be a British monarchy to produce degenerate princes if FDR hadn't helped them out back then.

And also because those very same Nazis he seems to think are so cool bombed his own grandmother, killed one of his great uncles and killed or injured hundreds of thousands of the people for whom the royal family is supposed to act as a figurehead.

quote: Carl Martin
but this was a private party at a friend's, wasn't it? was he expecting to end up on the front page of the sun? of course, it's probably rule #1 for a royal to always behave as if expecting to be photographed, but it's not like it was a public appearance.

Granted, but this idiot's moronic behaviour is paid for out of our taxes. If he was a private individual spending his own money on going to that party then I wouldn't defend the public interest. But as a senior member of the royal family whose lifestyle is funded out of the public purse, he has responsibilities that the rest of us don't. If he doesn't want those responsibilites, he could always abdicate any direct role in public life and earn his own living. Prince Edward was told to make that choice a couple of years ago: either you can run a TV production company making shite programmes for not-very-reputable cable stations (in which case, you can earn your own living), or you can be a full-time member of the royal family, going on official engagements and so on, but not both. It's time for Prince Harry to make a similar decision, IMHO.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-13-2005, 07:26 AM:

You'd think with the Germans running England for hundreds of years that unpleasantness of the last mid century could have been avoided. [Confused]

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-13-2005, 07:54 AM:

Not exactly defending him, but he's just a rich teenager (well, a little older I know) who did something stupid - as rich teenagers will do. He probably just thought; "PARTY-TIME!" While it's true he's in the public eye; when you're young and immature, you're young and immature, and no amount of 'logic' is going to replace experience.

Also, those of us who are older, and have fathers who were in the service during WWII, usually heard stories about what they did, so we are more aware why dressing like a Nazi is not too cool. He doesn't have that.

Again, not defending him. Just saying he's more immature than insensitive.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 01-13-2005, 10:11 AM:

Isn't he surrounded by handlers? You'd think they would have prevented this.

In the States, is a WWII German or Nazi uniform something you'd find at pretty much any costume shop?

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-13-2005, 10:19 AM:

Yeah, I believe he was just goofing off or whatever. Anyone with an ounce of a sense of humor would say, "Oh my God! A PRINCE in a NAZI uinform?!?! Hahahahaha! Great costume, Harry!" Honestly, if a tabloid reporter somehow got access to a Hollywood Halloween party, what would THEY put on the front page if they caught Julia Roberts in a devil costume or Michael Moore dressed up as a nurse??

"SCANDAL RIPS HOLLYWOOD! Julia Roberts takes up Satanism while Michael Moore impersonates medical staff..."

But yeah, good choice of costume if you're a typical dipshit kid going to your friends' party, but not if you're photographed every step of the way... Unless he EXPECTED to be photographed and this was his little "monkey wrench" in the tabloid machine. Too bad it backfired.

Oh, and Joe:

quote: Joe Redifer
I checked your German and even then it is still a teaser title. However unless you haven't noticed, the language of this forum is English.

If you checked a little harder, you would have seen that I was making a pun of the controversial verse(s) added to the German National Anthem during Hitler. The subject, translated, read: "Britain, Britain, above all [else]?" in the form of a question, which fits with the topic of discussion. It would be the same as, "What's wrong with this lamphouse?"

Feel free to retort my logic with a sarcastic remark flaunting your moderative powers. Still won't make you right. [Wink]

Oh, and do a search for posts in other languages. You'll have plenty of work ahead of you. In fact, I doubt several members' names are in English. I demand they be changed. [Razz]

Price is right is on.

=TMP=

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-13-2005, 11:33 AM:

quote: Dick Vaughan
BBC online have the picture here

Note that this is the 'newspaper' that I referred to in the 'beer' thread.

quote: Leo Enticknap
He wasn't thinking. Just like he didn't think when he whacked a photographer over the head with his own camera, threw up out of the window of his limo in Central London one afternoon in full view of tourists, workers and everyone and got blind drunk and trashed a pub after some polo match once.

I hadn't heard about most of these. If true, he should come and spend a few Friday and Saturday nights with the lager louts and vodka lout-ettes in Croydon; he'd feel at home here. This sort of yobbish behavior seems to be much more deserving of critisism than the 'nazi' business.

I am totally opposed to the nazis, and everything they stood for, but this seems to me to be a total non-story. Teenager (or is he slightly older than that now?) goes to fancy dress party wearing a nazi armband. Not in very good taste maybe, but hardly something that belongs on the front page of a newspaper. There was some punk rock woman who used to wear one on stage, wasn't there? I don't remember there being as much fuss about her.

Several members of the Royal Family seem to have made a habit of doing, and saying things in rather poor taste; or maybe it's just that when they do it, it gets onto the front page; when other people do it, it doesn't.

I'd be rather more concerned about another member of the Royal Family who, at the time, was at least sympathetic to the nazis, and probably more than that.

Wearing a nazi armband, unless done by an actor playing the part of a nazi seems to say one of two things about the wearer, either:

"I am a nazi"

or

"I am a silly boy"

Since, to the best of our knowledge', the Prince is not a nazi, the latter would seem to apply.

Real nazis are far more of a problem than silly armbands.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-13-2005, 03:07 PM:

quote: Thomas Procyk
If you checked a little harder, you would have seen that I was making a pun of the controversial verse(s) added to the German National Anthem during Hitler.

That wasn't added during the Nazi time, it was the original first verse of the poem by von Fallersleben which he wrote while in exile because he was a supporter of the democratic movement in the mid-19th century. It didn't originally have the meaning of supremacy above everything else in the world, but was simply a kitschy naive expression of homesickness. Because of the aggressive connotation it acquired later, it was dropped after WWII and now only the third verse is sung.

quote: John Walsh
Also, those of us who are older, and have fathers who were in the service during WWII, usually heard stories about what they did, so we are more aware why dressing like a Nazi is not too cool. He doesn't have that.

Of course he does. It's called history lessons. Especially as a member of a so-called "Royal Family" which doesn't have any function at all except as a symbol of tradition and national continuity, he has to be aware of the not-so-distant past, even more so as it is a very unhappy episode in the history of the very country his family supposedly "represents".
Apart from that, this era in history is so omnipresent even in popular media such as film and TV, you really have to be a complete idiot not to know what happened.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-13-2005, 04:05 PM:

I stand corrected, Michael. [Smile]

Interesting point, though, in my German classes (both HS and College) we always sang the Uber Alles verse. Not till second year of College German did they explain the situation with the verse(s). (And you can see how well I payed attention, hehe)

He should have gone as Harry Potter. Even I find a british kid named Harry in a Harry Potter costume funnier than a Nazi costume. Unless of course Eric Cartman is wearing it. But he's fictional. And cardboard.

=TMP=

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-13-2005, 04:09 PM:

Cartman also wore a Hitler costume in one episode, too. He imagined himself - enthusiastically - as Hitler on the Nuremberg podium, thereby requiring his teachers to try and educate him (without success, obviously) into thinking that Hitler 'wasn't cool'.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-13-2005, 05:59 PM:

No Thomas... "What's wrong with this lamphouse" tells you exactly what the thread is about. There was nothing in your title about Prince Henry dressing up as a Nazi for a party. It's like starting a thread called "America the Beautiful" when the whole thing is about taxes.

New rule that applies to everyone: I will immediately lock teaser-titled threads from now on. Same with non-English thread titles.

I imagine now Thomas will start searching the achives for teaser-titled threads.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-13-2005, 06:35 PM:

quote:

The guy's a yob; not thinking appears to be his problem, which it makes it a tad scary that he's about to start training to be an Army officer... [Eek!]

Don't you think that sending him to the military would be the thing to do to straighten him out? [Wink]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 01-13-2005, 06:54 PM:

Only if you run him through grunt training first. [Big Grin]

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-13-2005, 08:31 PM:

Could you just imagine what life would be like for him in a real boot camp?!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-14-2005, 12:30 AM:

I don't understand why England still has royalty. They are not better than regular people, in fact they are probably even more retarded (if that's possible). They should all be disposed of. Now celebrities... they are better than real people!

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-14-2005, 05:26 AM:

Well we're not the only ones to keep a royal family, but we do seem to be unique in having a bunch of royals which would make the Simpsons look like a happy and well-adjusted family unit. Apart from The Queen and Prince Philip all of their marriages failed (given the average divorce rate of 30% or so, that generation's 100% record is quite impressive), and of the generation below Prince Charles, only William seems capable of leading a normal (or as near to normal as is possible for the royals) life. For a family which is supposed to act as a national figurehead, just too many of them bring the country into disrepute on a regular basis. Prince Charles keeps blundering into political debates he clearly doesn't have the knowledge to make any meaningful contribution to. As for Prince Philip's infamous gaffes, the less said the better. Harry's yobbish behaviour has been covered. Zara Philips seems to make a point of shagging anything that moves, and of making sure that her doing so receives ongoing saturation press coverage, as did Fergie before she thankfully slipped out of the limelight. Prince Edward decided it would be fun to be a TV producer, so he started a production company which made one or two painfully bad programmes (including one in which he sent paparazzi photographers after his own nephew) and lost bazillions. And the list goes on.

Spain, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway all have royal families; and AFAIK none of them make arseholes of themselves in the way that ours does, all the time. I really can't work out why.

And as for Harry going into the Army, yes, it might sort him out - if he were going in as a private, not an officer. I don't like the idea of someone who gets his kicks out of dressing up in Nazi uniforms being responsible for other people's lives, somehow...

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-14-2005, 02:54 PM:

It appears Prince Harry is going to get a tour of Auchwitz (sp?) to straighten him out and make him understand why Nazi's aren't funny most of the time.

I remember the Cartman/Hitler episode. The school forced him to change costumes, and they made him a "Scary Ghost Costume" to replace it.... which turned out in the shape of a Klansmen's robe!! From one hate crime to the other... [Roll Eyes]

=TMP=

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-14-2005, 06:59 PM:

The place is actually called Oswiecim since it's in Poland. The German name for the city is Auschwitz.

Posted by Gunnar Johansson (Member # 1661) on 01-14-2005, 07:26 PM:

quote:
Leo wrote: Spain, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway all have royal families

and the Swedish king is rising in popularity in recent polls, as opposed to the Government taking a beating over the tsunami thing and the response to it.

I don´t know what the british royal house is doing, or doing wrong, and being a republican (not the american paryt, I dare you to guess what I vote for) I don´t know what the Swedish royal house is doing right. Still, so far, not a single swedish princess with a svastika...

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-14-2005, 07:48 PM:

Isn't it obvious? While those Swedish guys may not be top photo models or movie stars, they all don't look too bad while the British guys are all really, really ugly.
Who would you vote for if you were in America? Probably Ross Perot, although he didn't run recently.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-14-2005, 07:53 PM:

quote: Lt. Frank Drebin
No matter how silly the idea of having a queen might be to us, as Americans we must be gracious and considerate hosts.

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 01-14-2005, 10:47 PM:

Wearing a Nazi uniform to a party is ok, so long as it is in the spirit of Charles Chaplan, Spike Jones, Mel Brooks or even the film "Stalag 17" and the subsequent tv series "Hogan's Heros"!

I'll never forget some years ago when the Queen of England visited the US. Anyone remember that now famous scene where the Queen was visiting the home of that African-American family down South? And the subsequent look of shock when that large but jolly lady gave her that affectionate bear-hug? THE AUDACITY THAT THE QUEEN SHOULD EVEN BE TOUCHED!

Not to mention that when I lived in England during Desert Storm, I heard many "natives" gripe about the royal family and aristocracy in general (how rich they are and how little tax they pay, and how the little guy is [sex]

over!...sounds like the U.S.?

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 01-15-2005, 03:36 AM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
The place is actually called Oswiecim since it's in Poland. The German name for the city is Auschwitz.

And part of the complex there is now a museum. It has a web site at: www.auschwitz.org.pl, though it seems to be down at the moment. Parts of Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II at nearby Birkenau now form the museum.

Though there can be few things in the hstory of the World less funny than the events which took place under the nazis, there has long been an connection between the nazis and comedy. From Chaplin and 'The Great Diictator', to a British (I think) film, possibly part of a newsreel, of some marching nazis made to perform a sort of strange dance by running the film backwards and forwards to the tune of 'The Lambeth Walk', to a British comedian (I can't remember who it was) who included a nazi among the characters in hs act, to 'The Producers'. These are just a few examples which spring to mind. I've often wondered why.

Years later, Chaplin expressed doubts about the style of 'The Great Dictator', and whether he would he would have made the film if he had known the full horror of what was about to happen, or whether he would have expressed hiis opposition in some other way.

The 'dancing nazis' film was made during the War, as a means of mocking the enemy, something which probably goes back as far as war itself.

If you were to watch a film of Hitler speaking, without knowing anything about him, and without being able to understand German, there is something rather comic about his exagerated style of presentation, yet if you look at a film like 'Triumph des Willens' this was clearly not the reaction of his audience at the time.

The idea of a failed theatrical producer and a neurotic accountant setting out to make lots of money, by producing the World's worst play certainly has possibilities as the theme of a comedy film; but why the need to introduce the nazis, either as the author, or the subject, of the play within a play? I must admit that I feel a bit uneasy about this one. 'The Producers' is a great film, but if I'd been writing it I think I would have found some other subject for the World's worst play. Was this the very aim of the film; to present the audience with somethiing which at first they instinctivly find funny, but they then realise that they are finding funny something which they feel they shouldn't? Is this conflict deliberate?

Posted by Hugh McCullough (Member # 1542) on 01-15-2005, 05:58 AM:

Quote Stephen Furley

quote:
British (I think) film, possibly part of a newsreel, of some marching nazis made to perform a sort of strange dance by running the film backwards and forwards to the tune of 'The Lambeth Walk',

I understood that this film was made by the Dutch resistance. They would select a cinema that was full of Nazis, and show the film. Naturally they left the film running, and made a very quick exit.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-15-2005, 06:07 AM:

quote: Gunnar Johansson
Still, so far, not a single swedish princess with a svastika...

Yes, and the Swedish princesses look a damn sight nicer than any of our royals, too! [thumbsup]

quote: Will Kutler
And the subsequent look of shock when that large but jolly lady gave her that affectionate bear-hug? THE AUDACITY THAT THE QUEEN SHOULD EVEN BE TOUCHED!

In her defence I don't think it was that - a culture shock pure and simple, would be my guess. Us Brits just don't normally greet each other with bear hugs and she probably just wasn't used to it. There again, look on the bright side - I shudder to think what Prince Philip would have said if he'd got the hug! [Eek!]

Stephen: point taken about not all Nazi humour being unacceptable. In fact, I think humour can be a very effective way of coming to terms with some pretty horrible truths. My grandfather, who served in the Royal Engineers during WWII, was one of the first British soldiers to enter Bergen-Belsen in 1945; and he frequently made jokes about the Nazis in later life. Interestingly, people have recently started joking about a perceived British obsession with Hitler and the Nazis. At an archivists' conference last year, a friend joked that The History Channel, slogan 'All history, all the time', should really be renamed The Hitler Channel, slogan 'All Nazis, all the time'. 'What will their next documentary be called?', she asked, 'Eva Braun's Dog in Colour?... Adolf Hitler - His Secret Role in World War II?'.

But making jokes about the Nazis is one thing: actually dressing up as one, i.e. sending the message that it's actually amusing to represent yourself as one of these people, is less acceptable, IMHO. And doing so is moronic beyond belief when you're a prominent public figure whose lifestyle is funded by taxpayers.

Posted by Scott D. Neff (Member # 185) on 01-15-2005, 12:29 PM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
The place is actually called Oswiecim since it's in Poland. The German name for the city is Auschwitz.

Oswiecim, Aushwitz... Israel, Palestine... Texas, Hell... To-may-to, To-mah-to.

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 01-16-2005, 04:34 PM:

quote: Stephen Furley:

"The idea of a failed theatrical producer [etc, etc...] Is this conflict deliberate?"

I didn't think so.. Generally, Mel Brooks' humor is pretty simple, and usually made as 'extreme' as possible. In "The Producers" he was just looking for a topic that (one would think) would never, ever be accepted.

I guess different contries will tolerate different levels of acceptability depending on what they went through..ie: The Nazis dropped 'buzz-bombs' on England (which apparently had a devastating phycological effect.) So joking about Nazis there is a big no-no. Here, in the US, we never actually had bombs dropped on us, so we were a bit distant, so, some joking is OK. Just MOHO.

Michael, I'd like to ask, how is the subject of Nazis discussed in schools in Germany? My understanding is that there is at least some discussion that it was wrong, etc. (unlike in Japan where there either is none, or a sort of denial of any wrong-doing.) (If it's not a something you care to discuss, please accept my apologies....!)

Posted by Will Kutler (Member # 770) on 01-16-2005, 07:35 PM:

A few comments

Apparently in todays new Prince Chuckie is pretty well Tee'd off with both his sons and arrangements are now being made for them to visit Auschwitz.

The funny newsreel with Nazis marching forward and reverse was done to Spike Jone's "Der Fuherer's Face" and I believe was done by Disney.

John Walsh has stated that joking about Nazis in England is a "no-no". Obviously he has not seen classic programs like "Alo-Alo!"

Cheers

K.

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-17-2005, 02:51 AM:

...or 'Allo 'Allo.

Der Fuehrer's Face was a hilarious Disney cartoon from, I think, 1943, in which Donald Duck plays a downtrodden worker in a Nazi munitions factory. I've got a very ropey VHS of it somewhere.

Posted by Gunnar Johansson (Member # 1661) on 01-17-2005, 07:21 AM:

I´ve got a digital copy of Der Fuerhers face here, and another Disney (not featuring any of the classic characters) called Education for death, which was supposedly banned.
We´ve also got a WB one called Plane Daffy, also featuring Hitler in a role (as well as Goebbels och Göring).

And Leo´s right: There´s nothing really wrong with this (apart from me being republican), but I´m not sure I´d agree with Michael on the reason for the house of windsor being in trouble because of their ugliness, maybe in spite of it.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-17-2005, 09:37 AM:

quote: John Walsh
Michael, I'd like to ask, how is the subject of Nazis discussed in schools in Germany? My understanding is that there is at least some discussion that it was wrong, etc. (unlike in Japan where there either is none, or a sort of denial of any wrong-doing.)

"Some discussion" is a vast understatement. If you grow up in Germany, you get literally bombarded with information about the Nazi time. In school, you spend about three years alone studying only that period, take field trips to historical sites and KZs, and there is also extensive discussion of the periods which preceded and led to the Nazis, WWI and the Weimar Republic. In addition to that, the past is everywhere, on TV and in films, in documentaries, TV series, features, in magazines which run historical stories regularly.
So most people are quite well informed about what happened and have no illusions at all about the nature of this regime.

Your question is interesting because it shows that that kind of open confrontation of the realities of history is very rare.
It is safe to say that no other country (that I heard of) has faced its history as relentlessly as Germany. Not that there wouldn't be plenty of material. England, for instance, has perpetrated enormous crimes against many people over many centuries and still celebrates the memory of the "British Empire" uncritically, holding on to a completely degenerate "Royal Family" as a symbol of the "glorious past". If you think about it, even if "Prince Harry" hadn't shown up in a Nazi uniform, a "colonial and native" themed party as such is in gross bad taste, about the same as a "KZ guard and inmate" party. Only in England, people don't see that because they have never confronted their own past.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-17-2005, 11:09 AM:

quote:
And Leo´s right: There´s nothing really wrong with this (apart from me being republican),

AAARRRGHHHH!! AACK! UUUUGHH! I KNOW YOUR PARTY AFFILIATION! POLITIAL! POLITCAL! LOCK!!! LOCK!!!

=TMP= [Razz]

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-17-2005, 11:38 AM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
England, for instance, has perpetrated enormous crimes against many people over many centuries and still celebrates the memory of the "British Empire" uncritically, holding on to a completely degenerate "Royal Family" as a symbol of the "glorious past".

I don't think that's entirely fair. A new generation of popular historians in particular (e.g. David Starkey, Simon Schama) have produced work examining the internal human rights abuses within British history (e.g. Henry VIII's anti-Catholicism, the aftermath of the Civil War) and of the negative impact of the British Empire abroad in the nineteenth century. As for the royals, I don't think most Brits would want to celebrate them in the way you suggest: in fact opinion polls repeatedly suggest that most people regard them (with the possible exception of The Queen and Prince William, though even he failed to stop his brother from wearing the Rommel costume) more of an embarrassment than anything else. I can't see them being disestablished in the immediate future, but if they continue to try and muscle in on political debates without being elected or having any other qualification to do so, organising 'natives and colonials' parties and all their other faux passes, they'll just become increasingly irrelevant, and will stop being invited to official functions and that sort of thing. I can see this process accelerating when The Queen dies, because she's about the only one of them who really does any work to earn public respect.

As for the Nazi obsession, I guess it might start to fade a bit as people who were alive during that period get fewer and fewer, and therefore the living links start to go. I've always wondered why the Nazis receive so much more attention, publicity and media representation than Stalin's purges, which are believed to have killed at least four times as many people as the Holocaust. Maybe it's the personality of Hitler or just the staggering irrationality of attempting to exterminate a whole race, seemingly for no better reason than personal prejudice.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-17-2005, 11:58 AM:

I guess it's simply because Stalin's or Mao's "purges" were mostly "internal" and therefore somewhat remote events while many countries were directly affected by the war Hitler started. I guess for countries which at the time were just as deeply nationalist, it must have not sat very well being overrun in 3 weeks (like France, for instance) or being on the receiving end for a change (like the "British Empire" which incidentally lost a lot of its colonial territory as a consequence of WWII). I would almost go as far as saying, that from a certain point of view, the complete sinisterness (if such a word exists) of the NS regime, was a welcome excuse for other nations to detract from the skeletons in their own closets. Like again France, for instance, which immediately after the war went on to fight bloody colonial wars in Vietnam ("Indochine") and Algeria and which to this day hasn't fessed up to the crimes committed there. But that's just one of thousands of examples.