Classical Music Forum banner
Cancel

Okay, like the mod said, let's continue our discussion about Wagner and nazis...

72759 Views 851 Replies 54 Participants Last post by  mmsbls, 
millionrainbows
This is the place for it, right? Come on, let's have some posts! I don't wanna get banned again, or end up like Paul Best, the little boy who played too close to the railroad tracks.

So what's wrong with pointing out that Wagner and Hitler came from the same flawed Germanic social matrix, without having to "prove" it?

While Wagner didn't literally claim that Germans were superior to all other people, it is apparent that he felt that way on a cultural level. All his art was made within that culture.

I don't recall Wagner ever having said that some other culture was superior to Germans, do you? Can you provide any quotes, or any concrete evidence of this?
Save
Like
Status
Not open for further replies.
221 - 240 of 852 Posts
G
millionrainbows said:
I think the "absolutist" view of antisemitism is flawed, because it can vary according to circumstances and time. During Wagner's time not as many Jews had assimilated, such as Mahler later on. Mahler himself said he couldn't relate to the orthodox Jews he observed (in his letter to Alma). Mahler was so assimilated that his very identity could no longer relate to being Jewish.

Wagner seems more irritated by the failure of Jews to socially assimilate during his time. Figures like Mahler came later. Hitler's antisemitism is more about race, and physical traits, regardless of the exceptions who had assimilated. The more jews intermarried and mingled, the more their "Jewishness" got watered-down, and softened genetically.
Click to expand...
Blimey. It's good to know that if they "intermingle and intermarry", this dreadful Jewish trait can be "watered down".

But in any event, Wagner didn't write "I do wish the Jews would integrate more", but "No matter how well they integrate, they think Jewish thoughts and cannot imbibe as native the culture in which they find themselves".

You're saying that Mahler would have disagreed with Wagner on this, since he (Mahler) didn't think Jewishly any longer after having been assimilated for so long. But Wagner would have said, 'you're fooling yourself Gustav. No matter how much you assimilate, you will never be part of this culture'.

millionrainbows said:
I think Schoenberg was totally assimilated, totally German in identity, and desperately wanted to be part of the great Germanic/Wagnerian/Brahmsian tradition, but his lingering Jewish physical traits (balding head, etc) were what was used to reject him socially. So he had to leave, as Mahler did, betrayed by his own country.
Click to expand...
OK, bloody hell! A balding head is now a Jewish physical trait?!

I don't have a lot to say in regard to that, other than that you're expressing things which are just as disgusting in their stupid levelling of individual traits into "jewish" and "non-jewish" as Wagner perpetrated in the first place. Only you don't have the glorious works of music genius to excuse yourself with.

millionrainbows said:
Personally, I've decided to consider Wagner seriously, with a recent purchase of the complete Ring, and I want some perspective on his "antisemitism" that is not 'fundamentalist' and absolutist. Another reason I disagree with the absolutist view is because, whether we acknowledge it or not, all humans are racist.
Click to expand...
You are now equating antisemitism with racism. Whilst anti-semitism can be regarded as a form of racisim, it's not equivalent to it, and the stating of equivalence is to diminish the peculiarly nasty aspects of anti-semitism.

millionrainbows said:
Whether this racism is conscious (acknowledged as a universal human trait) or not can depend on if one is part of the "status quo" or majority who take identity for granted (most white people), and those who are of a minority or identify strongly with certain identity aspects: gender, sexuality, race (blank, Asian, Hispanic), orthodox Jews, white supremacists, and other strongly-defined identity associations.

These other strongly-defined identity associations tend to make these groups more sensitive to the idea of racism, though in most cases they see themselves as victims.
Thus, everybody on both sides needs to acknowledge their own racist nature. All humans are racist; it's how we deal with it that matters. And this means talking openly and flexibly about it, and ourselves.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with your premise, and therefore not with your conclusion.
See less See more
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
millionrainbows
annaw said:
There is proof that Wagner probanly didn't intend to create Jewish stereotypes.
Click to expand...
Whatever Wagner thought, the net result of its effect seems to contradict this. In my edition of The Ring (the 1984 CD issue), the illustrations of Alberich and the Nibelungs are invariably short (obviously), dark-haired with dark facial hair; additionally, they make jewelry.
Save
Like
annaw
millionrainbows said:
Whatever Wagner thought, the net result of its effect seems to contradict this. In my edition of The Ring (the 1984 CD issue), the illustrations of Alberich and the Nibelungs are invariably short (obviously), dark-haired with dark facial hair; additionally, they make jewel
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean it was Wagner's intention. Wagner was very sympathetic of his villains, particularly Alberich. There are also modern production which take place during the 20th century. It doesn't mean that this was what Wagner was communicating and often feel more like misinterpretations to me. We should base our discussion about the meaning of Wagner's work on his own words not someone's interpretation.

Antisemitic productions could be made of Verdi's operas as well (Il Trovatore for example) but this doesn't make the works antisemitic. This doesn't prove anything.
Save
Like
G
annaw said:
Not for a moment am I trying to excuse or justify Wagner's antisemitism. Saying that Mime or Beckmesser are Jewish stereotypes is a mere speculation and does not give any proof. Would you suspect they were Jewish stereotypes if you didn't know Wagner was an antisemitist? When I first time listened to the Ring this definitely didn't enter my mind.
Click to expand...
They did to me, actually. The nasal whine of Mime is peculiar. And the smarmy, ingratiating nature of Beckmesser was also a bit of an immediate standout.

annaw said:
There is proof that Wagner probanly didn't intend to create Jewish stereotypes. I'm going to quote one of Woodduck's post once again (pity he hasn't been active recently):
Click to expand...
The Woodduck's quotation got snipped by the posting technology here, not by me deliberately. I won't address it in all its details, other than to say I didn't mention Alberich or the Niebelungs, nor Wotan. I did mention Mime, as does Woodduck. Woodduck says that it's clear Mime was not intended to represent a Jew. I'm saying that Mime represents a lot of Jewish characteristics, which is a subtly different point.

annaw said:
That one passage from Die Meistersinger doesn't feel problematic to me at all. Wagner says there that even if Germany fell, its art still endures. That was proved to be quite true. German art and culture has had an undeniably huge influence on the whole European culture. You left out the second part of Sachs' final monologue:

what is German and true none would know,
if it did not live in the honour of German Masters.

It's not that different from your British songs ;). I don't see anything wrong with that passage as it talks about the power of Art more than the superiority of German nationalism.
Click to expand...
No, it's specifically and very explicitly saying that we are threatened by 'evil tricks' (presumably those perpetrated by 'foreigners') and that 'foreign mists with foreign vanities' would be 'planted in our German land'. Which is very much the thoughts of Hitler on the subject of Jews 'ingratiating' themselves into a culture which they would then undermine and overthrow.

annaw said:
I'm from a country which has been occupied many many times and I can say that claiming that foreign rulers don't always understand the occupied nation isn't that unreasonable thing to say at all. Wagner lived during a period when Germany was in part unified by their art. It was extremely important to them.
Click to expand...
Again, he's not saying that foreigners won't understand the natives. He's saying that the foreigner will plant themselves amongst the natives and will surpass them. It is not completely different from:

the Jew has at all times lived in States that have belonged to other races and within the organization of those States he had formed a State of his own, which is, however, hidden behind the mask of a 'religious community', as long as external circumstances do not make it advisable for this community to declare its true nature. As soon as the Jew feels himself sufficiently established in his position to be able to hold it without a disguise, he lifts the mask and suddenly appears in the character which so many did not formerly believe or wish to see: namely that of the Jew.


...which is from Mein Kampf.

annaw said:
When I say that antisemitism was only a small part of Wagner's ideas, I mean to say that dismissing his whole personality and character, which could enhance one's understanding of his art, doesn't seem entirely justified in my opinion.
Click to expand...
The trouble is that much of his personality and character is not particularly attractive, even disregarding the antisemitism thing. He leeched off whoever; he thought his talents gave him a right to luxury and living off others; he had no qualms about having affairs with other people, several times. And so on. He's just a thoroughly nasty piece of work. So I'll agree with you that antisemitism was only a small part of Wagner's ideas, but I don't think that helps his case much, really!
See less See more
Save
Like
JAS
Similar accusations have been made against H. L. Mencken, but I have known people who actually knew Mencken personally. He had many Jewish friends in his circle, and his views were a mixture of generally negative view on what was seen by some as Jewish dominance of cultural and financial matters, as a kind of faceless cabal, and friendly thoughts about individuals he knew who just happened to be Jewish. I know people who have black friends, but are still clearly very racist in their attitudes and comments. These things can be exceedingly complicated, and we do no one any favors in over simplifying them and dividing the world into good guys and villains.
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
millionrainbows
AbsolutelyBaching said:
Blimey. It's good to know that if they "intermingle and intermarry", this dreadful Jewish trait can be "watered down".
Click to expand...
I didn't say that Jewish traits were dreadful.

But in any event, Wagner didn't write "I do wish the Jews would integrate more", but "No matter how well they integrate, they think Jewish thoughts and cannot imbibe as native the culture in which they find themselves".
Click to expand...
You're saying that Mahler would have disagreed with Wagner on this, since he (Mahler) didn't think Jewishly any longer after having been assimilated for so long. But Wagner would have said, 'you're fooling yourself Gustav. No matter how much you assimilate, you will never be part of this culture'.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that; I simply offered Mahler as an example of a Jew who did not have a Jewish identity. He was totally German, along with Schoenberg.

I'm not sure what you think Wagner meant when he said "No matter how well they integrate, they think Jewish thoughts and cannot imbibe as native the culture in which they find themselves." That sounds like their identity was still identified with being Jewish to me.

OK, bloody hell! A balding head is now a Jewish physical trait?!
Click to expand...
Yes, it's one general trait, probably more common among Eastern European Jews and Czecks.

I don't have a lot to say in regard to that, other than that you're expressing things which are just as disgusting in their stupid levelling of individual traits into "jewish" and "non-jewish" as Wagner perpetrated in the first place.
Click to expand...
Well, it's something other people also see, in some casesn even Jews themselves.

You are now equating antisemitism with racism. Whilst anti-semitism can be regarded as a form of racisim, it's not equivalent to it, and the stating of equivalence is to diminish the peculiarly nasty aspects of anti-semitism.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was absolutely equivalent, and racism is relevant to my argument.

I don't agree with your premise, and therefore not with your conclusion.
Click to expand...
So you think you're not racist, along with the rest of humanity?
See less See more
Save
Like
G
JAS said:
Similar accusations have been made against H. L. Mencken, but I have known people who actually knew Mencken personally. He had many Jewish friends in his circle, and his views were a mixture of generally negative view on what was seen by some as Jewish dominance of cultural and financial matters, as a kind of faceless cabal, and friendly thoughts about individuals he knew who just happened to be Jewish. I know people who have black friends, but are still clearly very racist in their attitudes and comments. These things can be exceedingly complicated, and we do no one any favors in over simplifying them and dividing the world into good guys and villains.
Click to expand...
I agree it's complex. We know he was fond of Jewish conductors and so on, whilst also despising Jewish composers (especially if they were more successful than himself in Paris, for example).

I agree we shouldn't paint him in one colour, and that their are nuances in all people and how they form and give expression to their feelings.

I only got into this thread specifically to address whether Wagner's strand of antisemitism was different in kind from that of the Nazis, though, not to declare that Wagner was a goody or a baddy.
Save
Like
JAS
AbsolutelyBaching said:
. . . I only got into this thread specifically to address whether Wagner's strand of antisemitism was different in kind from that of the Nazis, though, not to declare that Wagner was a goody or a baddy.
Click to expand...
There is probably a common thread, but surely the Nazis went a lot further with it. I don't know that Wagner would have advocated the actual attempt to eradicate the whole race. That is certainly a very different kind of monster.
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
annaw
AbsolutelyBaching said:
They did to me, actually. The nasal whine of Mime is peculiar. And the smarmy, ingratiating nature of Beckmesser was also a bit of an immediate standout.
Click to expand...
And were you aware at that time that Wagner was an antisemitist?

The Woodduck's quotation got snipped by the posting technology here, not by me deliberately. I won't address it in all its details, other than to say I didn't mention Alberich or the Niebelungs, nor Wotan. I did mention Mime, as does Woodduck. Woodduck says that it's clear Mime was not intended to represent a Jew. I'm saying that Mime represents a lot of Jewish characteristics, which is a subtly different point.
Click to expand...
As far as I understand, Jewish stereotype is a combinatiom of so-called "Jewish characteristics". The fact that Mime possesses some of them, doesn't say that Wagner had (stereotypic) "Jewish characteristics" in mind.

No, it's specifically and very explicitly saying that we are threatened by 'evil tricks' (presumably those perpetrated by 'foreigners') and that 'foreign mists with foreign vanities' would be 'planted in our German land'. Which is very much the thoughts of Hitler on the subject of Jews 'ingratiating' themselves into a culture which they would then undermine and overthrow.
Click to expand...
I said what I think of this passage and I have nothing significant to add at the moment. Again, it's a mere speculation that it's about Jews. It sounds more like another country occupying Germany through war because he talks about a (foreign) prince.

Again, he's not saying that foreigners won't understand the natives. He's saying that the foreigner will plant themselves amongst the natives and will surpass them. It is not completely different from:

the Jew has at all times lived in States that have belonged to other races and within the organization of those States he had formed a State of his own, which is, however, hidden behind the mask of a 'religious community', as long as external circumstances do not make it advisable for this community to declare its true nature. As soon as the Jew feels himself sufficiently established in his position to be able to hold it without a disguise, he lifts the mask and suddenly appears in the character which so many did not formerly believe or wish to see: namely that of the Jew.


...which is from Mein Kampf.
Click to expand...
The difference is that Wagner doesn't mention Jews... If he wanted something to be explocitly clear, he would do so and not convey major ideas so that they have to be desperately looked for.

The trouble is that much of his personality and character is not particularly attractive, even disregarding the antisemitism thing. He leeched off whoever; he thought his talents gave him a right to luxury and living off others; he had no qualms about having affairs with other people, several times. And so on. He's just a thoroughly nasty piece of work. So I'll agree with you that antisemitism was only a small part of Wagner's ideas, but I don't think that helps his case much, really!
Click to expand...
Whether good or bad, his personality traits and life events can sometimes give additional information about how his operas should be interpreted.

These are my impressions and as long as I cannot prove that there are Jewish stereotypes in his operas, I'm happy to enjoy his works without worrying about them.
See less See more
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
millionrainbows
AbsolutelyBaching said:
Again, he's not saying that foreigners won't understand the natives. He's saying that the foreigner will plant themselves amongst the natives and will surpass them.
Click to expand...
This is no different than the situation in Texas, which by 2030 will consist of a majority of Hispanics; caucasians will be a minority.
Save
Like
millionrainbows
JAS said:
Similar accusations have been made against H. L. Mencken, but I have known people who actually knew Mencken personally. He had many Jewish friends in his circle, and his views were a mixture of generally negative view on what was seen by some as Jewish dominance of cultural and financial matters, as a kind of faceless cabal, and friendly thoughts about individuals he knew who just happened to be Jewish. I know people who have black friends, but are still clearly very racist in their attitudes and comments. These things can be exceedingly complicated, and we do no one any favors in over simplifying them and dividing the world into good guys and villains.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I think the absolutist thinking would disappear if the accusers put themselves into the equation as racists, since it's a universal human trait. You can't expect those Brits to be humble, though.
Save
Like
G
millionrainbows said:
I simply offered Mahler as an example of a Jew who did not have a Jewish identity. He was totally German, along with Schoenberg.
Click to expand...
And the point you're not getting is that Wagner would have said Mahler was deluding himself if that's what he thought, for as a Jew, he will always think as a Jew, no matter that he personally feels no Jewish identity. "In the first place, then, the general circumstance that the Jew talks the modern European languages merely as learnt, and not as mother tongues": speak German as fluently as you like, but if you're Jewish, you're speaking it as a foreigner, not a native.

Similarly, "Alien and apathetic stands the educated Jew in midst of a society he does not understand, with whose tastes and aspirations he does not sympathise, whose history and evolution have always been indifferent to him." Be as educated and monied as you like: you can even be baptised a Christian. It still won't allow you to regard the culture you're born into, and its history, tastes and aspirations as things you can naturally sympathise with.

millionrainbows said:
I'm not sure what you think Wagner meant when he said "No matter how well they integrate, they think Jewish thoughts and cannot imbibe as native the culture in which they find themselves." That sounds like their identity was still identified with being Jewish to me.
Click to expand...
He meant exactly what he said. They can integrate, but they will still think as a Jew. Or as someone else put it a bit later, "When talking French his thoughts are Jewish and when writing German rhymes he only gives expression to the character of his own race."

millionrainbows said:
So you think you're not racist, along with the rest of humanity?
Click to expand...
I tend not to speak on behalf of 7.4 billion other people. And I am not fit to judge whether I'm racist or not.
See less See more
Save
Like
G
JAS said:
There is probably a common thread, but surely the Nazis went a lot further with it. I don't know that Wagner would have advocated the actual attempt to eradicate the whole race. That is certainly a very different kind of monster.
Click to expand...
Well, they were in government and had all the resources of the state at their disposal. Of course they went further with it!

And Wagner did advocate the actual attempt to eliminate the whole race from Germany. He wrote about the need for an emancipation not of the Jews, but from them. With a nineteenth century mind, and as a private individual, he probably was of the "ship them back" school of thought, rather than the 'kill them all!" one, but that's a mere matter of degree, not of fundamental nature. The Nazis at one point wanted to ship the Jews off to Madagascar, rather than gas them all, too.
Save
Like
G
I'm not going to keep going quote-for-quote with you, since it seems unproductive. But...

annaw said:
I said what I think of this passage and I have nothing significant to add at the moment. Again, it's a mere speculation that it's about Jews. It sounds more like another country occupying Germany through war because he talks about a (foreign) prince.
Click to expand...
It's specifically about foreigners that will implant themselves amongst the culture and undermine it from within. No, it doesn't say "Jews!". It doesn't have to.

annaw said:
These are my impressions and as long as I cannot prove that there are Jewish stereotypes in his operas, I'm happy to enjoy his works without worrying about them.
Click to expand...
Good for you, then. I do think there are Jewish stereotypes in his operas, I'm still ready to enjoy his works, but they do worry me.
Save
Like
annaw
AbsolutelyBaching said:
I'm not going to keep going quote-for-quote with you, since it seems unproductive. But...

It's specifically about foreigners that will implant themselves amongst the culture and undermine it from within. No, it doesn't say "Jews!". It doesn't have to.

Good for you, then. I do think there are Jewish stereotypes in his operas, I'm still ready to enjoy his works, but they do worry me.
Click to expand...
Those foreigners could mean French as well. How do you know Wagner didn't mean it that way? Most foreign occupation affects the local culture or even tries to undermine it. Also, Jews didn't have a kingdom with a prince during that period and unless Sachs meant Rothschild, I see no overly clear reason why "prince" needed to be inserted there.

I think we simply have to agree to disagree...
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
JAS
AbsolutelyBaching said:
Well, they were in government and had all the resources of the state at their disposal. Of course they went further with it!

And Wagner did advocate the actual attempt to eliminate the whole race from Germany. He wrote about the need for an emancipation not of the Jews, but from them. With a nineteenth century mind, and as a private individual, he probably was of the "ship them back" school of thought, rather than the 'kill them all!" one, but that's a mere matter of degree, not of fundamental nature. The Nazis at one point wanted to ship the Jews off to Madagascar, rather than gas them all, too.
Click to expand...
I think that there is a huge difference between the idea of forcing people to leave a country and actually killing them. Wagner might well have advocated totally disrupting their lives and seizing their personal property, which is certainly bad enough, but Nazis actively rounded up Jewish people, subjected them to work camps with terrible conditions, ran inhumane experiments on them, and executed huge numbers in various ways. The basis for the attitudes may be similar, and equally criticized, but the end result is a very different matter, and I think that matters.
Save
Like
G
annaw said:
Those foreigners could mean French as well. How do you know Wagner didn't mean it that way?
Click to expand...
Because the French live in France and don't go around 'planting' themselves in Germanic soil.

Even when they invade with armies, they pack up afterwards and go home!

But who wanders around the place, with no fixed nationality, but appear as spores to populate amongst a people? Everyone in Wagner's day would have known who he was referring to.

annaw said:
Most foreign occupation affects the local culture or even tries to undermine it.
Click to expand...
You need to read the text again.

Beware! Evil tricks threaten us:
if the German people and kingdom should one day decay,
under a false, foreign rule
soon no prince would understand his people;
and foreign mists with foreign vanities
they would plant in our German land;

Notice the semicolon at the end of 'his people': that's the end of one thought. Then 'foreign mists would be planted in our German land' is a second, though related, thought. We're not talking about military defeat and occupation. We're talking about the decay of German moral and cultural supremacy and its replacement by a 'planted' foreign 'vanity'. No boots and horses required.

annaw said:
Also, Jews didn't have a kingdom with a prince during that period and unless Sachs meant Rothschild, I see no overly clear reason why "prince" needed to be inserted there.
Click to expand...
And again, I point you to the semi-colon. The prince is one way in which Germany will one day decay (under a false, foreign rule). The 'foreign mists' is another way entirely, and requires no kingdom with a prince.

annaw said:
I think we simply have to agree to disagree...
Click to expand...
Well, I certainly disagree with your reading of the Meistersinger libretto at this point!
See less See more
Save
Like
G
JAS said:
I think that there is a huge difference between the idea of forcing people to leave a country and actually killing them.
Click to expand...
Really? I seriously don't.

JAS said:
Wagner might well have advocated totally disrupting their lives and seizing their personal property, which is certainly bad enough, but Nazis actively rounded up Jewish people, subjected them to work camps with terrible conditions, ran inhumane experiments on them, and executed huge numbers in various ways. The basis for the attitudes may be similar, and equally criticized, but the end result is a very different matter, and I think that matters.
Click to expand...
So, disrupting lives, confiscating properties, and 'shipping them out' is fundamentally different from disrupting lives, confiscating properties and killing them?

The end result in either case is the disruption of lives (that don't really matter anyway), the confiscation of property and a Jew-free Germany. From the German's point of view, there's no difference in outcome at all.

In regard to the other points you mention, you only conduct inhumane experiments on "things" you don't consider human. You only create slave labour camps if you don't regard the slaves as having the same human rights you would afford to yourself and your family. And you only kill people by the million when you don't consider them 'people' at all, but rather a pestilence that needs to be eradicated.

And Wagner's idea that Jews couldn't think non-Jewishly, couldn't speak properly, couldn't create true art properly, because they were never, and could never be, properly Germans is only one step short of thinking that they were never properly human.

If you want to say that Wagner's antisemitism is different in kind from the Nazis', that's where the answer lies: Wagner thought Jews weren't German, Nazis thought Jews weren't human. But is that a fundamental difference in philosophy, or merely a difference in conception of what a powerful state could be expected to do? Personally, I think if you take Wagner's conception of "other", give it 40 or 50 years of the development of a powerful, centralised state, and add in the inhumanity brought about by the First World War, it's a pretty straight line from Wagner to the Nazis.
See less See more
Save
Like
millionrainbows
AbsolutelyBaching said:
He meant exactly what he said. They can integrate, but they will still think as a Jew. Or as someone else put it a bit later, "When talking French his thoughts are Jewish and when writing German rhymes he only gives expression to the character of his own race."
Click to expand...
I think you're missing the point. Total assimilation would mean the subjective identity as well. Wagner is seeing the Jew in conflict, and underestimates the importance of identity.
We disagree on this crucial point. Mahler is my example of the totally integrated identity. The individual's sense of identity should always matter more than an outside observer's perception.

And Wagner's idea that Jews couldn't think non-Jewishly, couldn't speak properly, couldn't create true art properly, because they were never, and could never be, properly Germans is only one step short of thinking that they were never properly human.
Click to expand...
I think that's a jump. Whether or not he knew it or could articulate it, Wagner was seeing the conflict of the unassimilated Jew, which is absent if the assimilation includes subjective identity, as with Mahler.
If Wagner could see the degree of assimilation in modern-day America, he would be astonished. But things hadn't progressed back in his time; there were still large cultural differences in existence; things moved slower, communication was not instant like it is today.
You're trying to apply your new liberal democratic ideas to Wagner, who was in a nineteenth century setting. Not just nineteenth century attitude, but nineteenth century states of cultural melding, social identity, migration, war, etc.
See less See more
Save
Like
JAS
AbsolutelyBaching said:
. . . So, disrupting lives, confiscating properties, and 'shipping them out' is fundamentally different from disrupting lives, confiscating properties and killing them?

The end result in either case is the disruption of lives (that don't really matter anyway), the confiscation of property and a Jew-free Germany. From the German's point of view, there's no difference in outcome at all. . . .
Click to expand...
Both are terrible, and despicable on their own terms, but yes I see them as very different things. If you do not, then no further discussion is possible or practical to attempt. You are basically suggesting that if you hit someone's car on a bridge, you might as well push them over the edge because it is the same, when it isn't. (And the difference is not merely one of intent.)
Save
Like
221 - 240 of 852 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Classical Music Forum
A forum community dedicated to classical music musicians and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about arrangements, collections, techniques, instruments, styles, reviews, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Classical Music Discussion Classical Music Discussion Polls Off Topic Pub Opera Non-Classical Music
Top