57
German town bans stumbling stone memorials to Nazi victims (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 7 hours ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 39 points 6 hours ago* (2 children)

Germany's education minister has branded the ban on the small brass memorial plaques a "scandal".

Germany's education minister is from the same party that cooperated with fascists for this ban. From the same party of our chancellor who loudly proclaimed that everyone cooperating with the AfD will get excluded from the party... before then trying to push anti-immigration legislation through with the AfD against the then governing SPD-Greens-FDP coalition.

They are –like all "conservatives" nowadays– openly lying to our faces and not even trying to hide it anymore. At this point it's basically just mocking the voters because getting rid of democracy with the help of the far-right is their very obvious plan anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 23 points 6 hours ago

    Typical BBC reporting "in memory of Jews and other victims of Nazi atrocities." The "other victims" never deserve being named and recognised and remembered.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 16 points 6 hours ago

    The picture isn't representative though, in the article they're covered with rocks next to it so it's walkable and flush and not literally a stumbling stone.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

    Gunter Demnig, the artist who initiated the Stolperstein project, said that given the recent electoral successes of the AfD "it was certainly to be expected that something like this would happen".

    Made me curious how recent this thing was, the first one was 1996, didnpeoplenthi k this would last forever?

    What is the point of limiting to WW2 rather than any genocide to make it a statement against that?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

    What is the point of limiting to WW2 rather than any genocide to make it a statement against that?

    The point is to put these stones next to the last known voluntary residence of each individual victim, to make it easier to grasp where these things happened and that they happened to specific individuals, not to an anonymous mass of faceless, nameless people. I am not aware of any other genocides within German borders where the same could be applied.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [+] -9 points 6 hours ago* (3 children)

    I think Israel has created a problem with never ending memorials to the Holocaust. I think new memorials should perhaps be cut off or isolated to 100 years after the events, so no new memorials after 2045 for instance (which is closer than most people realize). Memorials might also have to be amalgamated and merged to sites where significant loss of life occurred.

    Hitler was a fuck up, and since his time other fascist leaders such a Ceaușescu (24 years in power), Putin (26 years in power), Chiang Kai-Shiek (25 years in power), and the leaders of North Korea (40+ years in power collectively) have demonstrated that if a fascist or Authoritarian wants to stay in power for a long time, it's best to avoid mass causality killings, and invasions of places that have treaties and alliances.

    Yes Hitler caused massive amounts of death, 6 million Jews in the camps, 8 million gays, criminals, subversives, and the mentally ill. Another 76+ million dead in the fighting (30, million of whom were Russian)...

    Hitler was horrible because of the doom, horror, abuse, and mass deaths Jewish people AND OTHERS felt during and around these events... And this has lead Jewish people to create Israel.

    The 70+ million others dead are also important too. The fact that fascists have since used other tactics to stay in power is important too. Germany has done a good job of remembering and protecting information around the Holocaust, but having an ever growing number of in-situ permanent memorials being created 70 - 100 years after the event may be getting extreme and lead to lessening the impact of remembering.

    If road workers, and city planners have to deal with these, or they become too much of a boondoggle, they may no longer be seen as relevant or as serious as they should be.

    Israel recently demolished grave sites and memorials to WW1 in order to better kill people in Gaza, so clearly there are limits on these things. It's just a matter of finding reasonable limits whilst protecting the memory AND CAUSES of what happened, what causes mass killings and fascism:

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-said-to-damage-gaza-cemetery-containing-graves-of-allied-troops-from-world-wars/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 5 hours ago* (2 children)

    I think Israel has created a problem with never ending memorials to the Holocaust. I think new memorials should perhaps be cut off or isolated to 100 years after the events, so no new memorials after 2045 for instance

    Or maybe, just maybe, this has nothing to do with Israel and the decent part of the German population just wants to do everything they can to prevent a repeat of what happened back then. Now, in 100 years, in 500 years, ... you get the point I hope.

    What other bad people did in other parts of the world has no relevance whatsoever for a project that specifically puts small memorials near the last know voluntary residence of a genocide victim on German soil.

    If road workers, and city planners have to deal with these, or they become too much of a boondoggle,

    Never heard anyone else complain about that before. Are you a road worker or city planner in Germany?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 child)

    the German population just wants to do everything they can to prevent a repeat of what happened

    Conflicts with:

    What other bad people did in other parts of the world has no relevance whatsoever

    Do you mean: They only want to prevent genocides of a certain scale happening again in a certain area (Germany), and not prevent them globally? Because that sort of selective empathy is pretty fucked up you know?

    Do you see how your two above statements conflict right? A wrong to humanity anywhere is a wrong to humanity everywhere. No matter where, no matter when. Why would prevention in Germany be the only limitation?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •