For you Wolfgang

From [ Marc Abrams (2003.04.09.0200) ]

To Wolfgang, my feelings are expressed quite nicely in this piece. I will also add that the war was an unfortunate outcome but not unexpected.

** Dear Germany: Have you learned anything?**
Dennis Prager (archive)

  April 8, 2003 | [<img alt="printer friendly version" src="http://www.townhall.com/images/icon_print.gif" align="top" border="0">
  Print](http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/printdp20030408.shtml) | [<img alt="email to a friend" src="http://www.townhall.com/images/icon_email.gif" align="top" border="0">
  Send](http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20030408.shtml#)

  I grew up, as many Americans and nearly all Jews did, with a deep anger at your country. But as a young man, I began to rethink my views of Germans. Against the wishes of almost everyone I knew -- most of whom would not even buy a German product -- I decided to go to Germany. My visit in 1968, at the age of 20, was the first of at least a dozen trips to your country.

In fact, I became a defender of yours.

  I argued that it was wrong to hold any German who had been younger than 13 years old during the war morally responsible for your country's horrific crimes. I chose the age of 13 because in Judaism, that is the age of moral culpability. I argued in 1968 that every German then under the age of 40 must be regarded as blameless, and we should not assume the worst of every German over 40.

  I argued that because Volkswagen and Mercedes defied the Arab boycott and did business with Israel, Jews should not boycott German products.

  I argued that you were our staunch ally in the Cold War in confronting Soviet Communism.

  I argued, most important of all, that Germans were ashamed of their Nazi past and had learned great moral lessons from it.

  The last argument, I now realize, was more hope than fact. There is no question that the vast majority of Germans are ashamed of Nazism and the Holocaust. But I am now as certain as I am sad that you learned nothing about good and evil from it, and that you are as confused morally today as you were when you supported Hitler. Not because you are evil, but because you cannot recognize evil.

  This is stunning. Unlike the Japanese, who have ignored their atrocities against the Chinese and Koreans, you confronted your evil. You taught the next generations of Germans about Nazism and about the Holocaust.

  It is therefore incredible that all that education about evil has produced a generation that shies away from judging, let alone confronting, evil. It boggles the mind that a nation that was liberated from Nazism solely by armies waging war should embrace pacifism, that a nation that saw what appeasement of evil leads to now embraces it.

  I was sure that some German leaders would stand up and say, "My fellow Germans, we know a Hitler when we see one, and Saddam Hussein is one." But no German stood up to say this. Instead one of your leaders compared the American president to Hitler.

  I was sure that some German leaders would stand up and say, "My fellow Germans, we know genocidal anti-Semitism when we see it, and we see it in the Arab world." But no German leader stood up to say this either.

  Few of us expected anything from the French. From the Jacobins and the guillotine, to the Dreyfus trial, to the Vichy regime, to de Gaulle's withdrawal from anti-Communist NATO, France, with rare exceptions, has done little that is moral and nothing that is courageous. So the disdain that many Americans have long felt for France has merely been reinforced.

  But I think that I speak in the name of many Americans in saying that we expected more of you. Because of what we did for you after World War II and during the Cold War. Because you, of all people, know that Americans are a decent people. And especially because of your experience with evil. How could you have produced a Hitler and not recognize another one just one generation later? How could you know firsthand about torture chambers and children's screams and not ache to end them in another country? How could you side with amoral France against your friend America?

  There is, it would seem, only one answer. Nazism taught you nothing. Instead of learning that evil must be fought, you learned that fighting is evil.

But thanks for Bach.

(Attachment icon_print.gif is missing)

(Attachment icon_email.gif is missing)

(Attachment Prager.gif is missing)

[From Rick Marken (2003.04.09.1030)]

Bill Powers (2003.04.09.0957 MST)--

Marc Abrams (2003.04.09.0200) --

One problem with "Dear Germany" is that it takes 100,000,000 people or so
and hangs one simple-minded label on every last person, even a gentle and
peaceful man like Wolfgang Zocher...

Another problem is that the parallel between Saddam and Hitler is weak.

Another problem is the assumption that what Germans should have learned from the
the Hitler era is that anti-Semitism is bad and that, therefore, they should have
been in favor of war against the "anti-Semitic" Semite Saddam. I would hope that
the mass murder of Jews (and other groups) by Gremans during the Hitler Era would
teach something a little deeper than than it's wrong to hate Jews. At the very
least I would hope that it would teach people that it is wrong to hate _anyone_.
But I think there is a more PCTish lesson of the Hitler era that I rarely see
discussed.

The lesson is that _all people_, even the most "civilized" (and mid-20th century
Germans were very civilized technically, scientifically and artisitically) can
adopt ubarbaric goals. The main lesson of the Hitler Era (for me) is that we are
all the same as the Germans living in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. Germans at
that time were the same kind of systems as Germans, Americans, French and
Malaysians, etc are today: perceptual control systems.

Prager's idea that a particular group of people is uniquely unable to see evil is
not only inconsistent with the basic assumptions of PCT but it is also just as
racist as Hitler's idea that the Jews were uniquely evil. What we should learn
from the Hitler ERA, I think, is that we are all potential Nazis and because of
this we should always be willing to question our own motives and our beliefs, we
should try to be tolerant of people who question our motives and beliefs, we
should work always question whether we (or people we admire) are right. We should
welcome skepticism of our own and others beliefs. We should be especially
skeptical of our own goals when we start dealing with other people as objects in
the way of our achieving those goals.

I think the lessons of the Hitler Era, like the lessons of PCT, are about one's
self. When people start talling other people what they _should_ have learned from
the Hitler era or from PCT I know that those people have not learned much from the
Hitler Era or PCT.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
Senior Behavioral Scientist
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[From Bill Powers (2003.04.09.0957 MST)]

Marc Abrams (2003.04.09.0200) --

One problem with "Dear Germany" is that it takes 100,000,000 people or so
and hangs one simple-minded label on every last person, even a gentle and
peaceful man like Wolfgang Zocher, whom I am proud to call my friend as
well as a respected colleage -- just like you, Marc. There are stupid nasty
Germans, and stupid nasty French, and stupid nasty Americans, and so on
down the list. Why be so selective? Why not just hate the whole human race?
It's quicker to do that and then just name a few exceptions.

Another problem is that the parallel between Saddam and Hitler is weak.
Morally, there wasn't much to choose between them, but in terms of their
threat to the world, there is no comparison. Hitler conquered at least
Poland, Austria, Czeckoslovokia, and France, and came closer than he knew
to beating England, and maybe Russia. He might then, especially with the
help of Japan and Italy, have gone on to present a real threat, a deadly
threat, to the U.S.. Saddam couldn't take on, one at a time, anything more
frightening than Kuwait, Iran, and his own northern Kurds. Like his
Minister of Information, he was all mouth. He was never anything more than
an annoyance to us, just as the terrorists, when you come right down to
power and numbers, have never been more than an annoyance to us. We kill
five times as many of each other every year with guns alone, and lots more
with cars, as Osama bin Laden managed to kill with his best one-time
effort. Saddam will be put down totally inside a month, and it really took
only two weeks to make the outcome perfectly clear. He never had a chance.
It took four bloody years and millions of casualties to persuade Hitler to
quit, and he had a damned good chance of fulfilling his ambitions. And
Vietnam took 7 years.

I don't know why we went to war with Iraq, but it sure wasn't because we
were terrified that Saddam would take over the world, or even Peoria,
Illinois. Anybody who was actually afraid of Saddam (or Osama) must not
ever have been in a _real_ war. Only a bully has to build up a weak
opponent to make him look deserving of a beating. In a real war, a bully
would suddenly discover what being afraid is really like. I hope Saddam had
a taste of that, though if he's dead I doubt that he learned much of a
lesson. I can think of other people who need that kind of an education, too
-- if it could be obtained without involving anyone else.

Best,

Bill P.

from [ Marc Abrams (2003.04.09.1437) ]

[From Bill Powers (2003.04.09.0957 MST)]

One problem with "Dear Germany" is that it takes 100,000,000 people or so
and hangs one simple-minded label on every last person, even a gentle and
peaceful man like Wolfgang Zocher, whom I am proud to call my friend as
well as a respected colleage -- just like you, Marc.

You missed my point entirely. I was not hanging any "simple-minded label" on
anyone. I think Praeger conveyed an accurate portrait of a Jew growing up in
America post WWII. How you might relate to that experience I have no idea. I
lost large parts of my family to the holocaust. Now I am sure ( at least I
hope so ) that Wolfgang had nothing to do with any of that. I am not blaming
him for it nor am I holding him responsible for it. I think Praeger tried to
convey the idea that Germans above all others should be very sensitive to
dictators in general and what they are capable of doing. I think, and concur
that Praeger expressed _disappointment_, not anger or hate at a majority of
the German people.

There are stupid nasty
Germans, and stupid nasty French, and stupid nasty Americans, and so on
down the list. Why be so selective? Why not just hate the whole human

race?

It's quicker to do that and then just name a few exceptions.

Talk about being simplistic. I agree that violence and war are not long term
solutions to conflict. What is? Plenty of smart people over many thousands
of years have yet to come up with a way of avoiding it. Why did the Japanese
feel compelled to attack Pearl Harbor? The problem with getting answers to
these questions is that they all seem reasonable _after_ the fact.

Another problem is that the parallel between Saddam and Hitler is weak.
Morally, there wasn't much to choose between them, but in terms of their
threat to the world, there is no comparison.

I don't think we need to go any further then "morally". We are living in a
different age. Saddam's capacity to inflict harm on others was not
correlated to the strength of his army. It was related to his desire and
means to arm terrorists and others intent on doing harm to us. No, Saddam
could not "conquer" others the conventional way. But with the help of the
rest of the Arab world and the complacency of _some_ European countries, he
might have been able to put a very big hurt on us.

We kill
five times as many of each other every year with guns alone, and lots more
with cars, as Osama bin Laden managed to kill with his best one-time
effort.

What's your point? That car accidents are more harmful to us then Osama is?
Please.

Saddam will be put down totally inside a month, and it really took

only two weeks to make the outcome perfectly clear. He never had a chance.
It took four bloody years and millions of casualties to persuade Hitler to
quit, and he had a damned good chance of fulfilling his ambitions. And
Vietnam took 7 years.

See my statement above. This is a new age. Conventional ways and methods no
longer apply.

I don't know why we went to war with Iraq, but it sure wasn't because we
were terrified that Saddam would take over the world, or even Peoria,
Illinois. Anybody who was actually afraid of Saddam (or Osama) must not
ever have been in a _real_ war.

Wrong. I was in a _real_ war and Osama and Saddam scared the hell out of me.
I believe the Islamists ( i.e. the radical muslims) numbering some 100
million around the world, and being orchestrated from the Middle East (
primarily Saudi Arabia ) very much want to turn the world into an Islamist
state. They detest democracy ( any law given by man is not valid ) and hate
our economic system. They truley believe we are out to destroy them and they
would prefer to live in the 7th Century. You cannot negoiate with them nor
can you reason with them. If you think otherwise I think you are badly
informed.

Only a bully has to build up a weak
opponent to make him look deserving of a beating.

I hope this sends a message to Jong and the rest of the Middle East. We will
not be intimidated,`I also hope this gives encouragement to other peoples in
the Middle east and elsewhere that freedom is something they can have as
well, and I would hope we would support such efforts to help them get it.

Marc