Talk:German collective guilt

I created this page since there previously existed a page with the same name, written by an editor now serving his second one year block. Although it was deleted: Articles_for_deletion/German_collective_guilt, it still exists in Wikipedia mirrors, so creating a disambiguation page seems the best step forward for now.--Stor stark7 Speak 17:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
The article currently unduly emphasises the existence of collective guilt as a genuine phenomenon as opposed to its alleged existence after the war as a propaganda tool. --S Larctia (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see it that way, certainly where the punishment of "Germany" was concerned, the scope of punishment affected all of the German people with complete disregard for the vanquished. That is certainly pronouncing sentence in accordance with collective guilt. Regardless the article needs more content before we can start passing judgement. P ЄTЄRS  J V ►TALK 19:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article seems to present the concept as a genuine phenomenon, and doesn't make it clear enough that collective guilt was a mean-spirited and vengeful construct of Allied propaganda and the homicidal Morgenthau Plan. "Collective guilt" it must be made clear was not a genuine, organic feeling of all Germans, but rather, was offered up by the Allies as justification for the terrible atrocities they were about to commit under the guise of plan Morgenthau!! joepa T 18:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of a deleted article version
It should be noted that Volunteer Marek was caught proxying for then blocked user Molobo. User:Radeksz as he is known as in the findings of of fact of the linked to Arbitration changed his name to "Volunteer Marek" after it. Today Volunteer Marek has, while using the words "restore last neutral version", restored the old version of this article that was deleted after AFD as beeing completely non-neutral. The old version that by the way was originally written by Molobo, mentioned above. Note the AfD date of 2007 October 11 in the version that Volunteer Marek "restored".--Stor stark7 Speak 06:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is subject of an AFD currently. This is supposed to be a second nomination. Thanks for pointing out that the current AfD link is the wrong one. I will fix that. However, the current version as restored by User:Exit2DOS2000 is clearly POV and in fact, it embodies the worst of far-right propaganda.
 * If the old version was deleted, why was there a new version here?
 * Also, for future reference, please confine yourself to discussing content rather than editors, including making irrelevant attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I support the action of Exit2DOS2000. The Molobo version should not be used here as the consensus of the previous AFD was that it should be deleted and I agree that it does not address the topic properly. Warden (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but the current version is anything but NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Volunteer Marek: Since you are not an administrator I think it is important that others understand from where you managed to access the text of a deleted article. As for your accusations of "far-right propaganda" aparently aimed at the recent editors of the article, I would advice you to be very careful about such personal attacks, given your block history it might result in quite a hefty block.--Stor stark7 Speak 07:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He could've saved it when the article was up, someone who saved it could have emailed it to him, or he could have simply asked an administrator for it (deleted articles without special concerns are not confidential; any admin could have given him access without a policy problem.) Or he could've gotten it from one of the Wikipedia mirrors that kept it. There's at least one googleable mirror (wikibin) that has had a copy of the deleted article up the whole time.  It frankly doesn't matter one way or another and is not relevant to the discussion of this page.  98.248.194.216 (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhhh, how about the actual explanation - the old version is in this article's history . Which is why i didn't realize that there was a previous AfD and thought that someone had just pull'ed the ol' "effectively delete it by turning it into a dab page" trick. The fact that there's three versions of the article running around does make this whole thing quite confusing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, that works too, and is hilariously easier. I didn't see that the old version was in the history at the time, I was just trying to suggest ways you could've gotten access to a deleted article in order to show there was nothing at all potentially illegitimate about it. 98.248.194.216 (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding of it is that Stor stark7 recreated the article as a dab because he didn't like the fact that the old article still existed on Wikipedia mirrors. So the purpose of the dab was to remove the article from off-Wiki sites. I dunno... that seems like a fairly spurious reason to recreate deleted articles. Anyway, presumably that's why the article's history combines the old and new.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article now has the edit history of the older, deleted version because admin DGG restored that history as a way of responding to my request for a sight of the earlier version. See the discussion. Warden (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

for starting
Why for starting only? They designed and implemented Nazi crimes.Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It wasn't about "starting" the war at all; you're right&mdash;it was about the Holocaust and other war crimes. The content associating guilt with "starting the war" probably came from a misreading of the source by the editor who originally added that material, possibly out of confusion with the War guilt clause in the Treaty of Versailles ending World War I, which *was* about assigning guilt to Germany for starting that war. There's been debate about that issue for over a century. The similarly named "Collective guilt" however, is not about who started the Second World War. Mathglot (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Morgenthau
In my view, the Germans got off lightly.92.11.63.68 (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Well then, you're talking out of your hole. The German guilt has set up a hatred for their own culture. Look no further than the migrants crisis now and what Merkel is doing. Left-wing loon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:8B09:7E00:5C98:AE17:B520:335B (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The Germans hate Jews, always have, always will. Nobody in Germany feels guilt at anything. What is happening with Merkel is just Merkel being an incompetent woman.92.10.241.106 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia Talk page which has the sole purpose of discussing improvements of articles, not a regulars' table. --91.2.172.28 (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You Are EVIL.
 * You have no idea about the bullying that is happening to Germans. 24.229.171.154 (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt
Arendt's position was not against Jaspers', but she made it clear that the collectivisation of guilt ("wir alle") was protecting those who actually comitted the crimes and who "have names", even though she acknowledged having had the same impulse of saying "all of us" at first. She made that clear among other places in the famous interview with Günther Gaus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.112.184 (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Copied to Politics of Germany
Just letting you know, I’ve copied some of this page to Politics of Germany Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)