Ex-Nazi "Bookkeeper of Auschwitz" Asks for 'Forgiveness'

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood,

I'm just trying to fit things together here regarding 1918-1919. From what you are saying the Lloyd George government was only trying to maintain British interests at Versailles. But his "Khaki Election" Campaign (1918) had a slogan - "Squeezing Germany until the pips squeak!" or something to that affect. At least that is what I understood. If that is correct, the British delegation was actually also looking for some restitution (financial or material) from Germany. In fact, the U.S. was (again my understanding of this) rather restrained at this point about restitution. We did pursue Germany in the law courts over acts of sabotage (the "Black Tom Island" incident in 1916), but I can't recall a determination to actually demand huge financial payments from Germany. In fact, later on we created two separate if somewhat inadequate financing plans to assist the Germans in paying off British and French demands.* And Britain and France actually tried to encourage us to pick up mandates in the Middle East like Lebanon and Palestine (which the Wilson administration wisely refused to consider).

[*The second was the "Dawes Plan". I can't recall the first one.]

If I am wrong please clear it up to me

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

The point to bear in mind here is that the whole point for us was to keep the Germans away from the North West coast of France and it follows secure our trade routes.

Once the Germans were pushed back and surrendered then that was job done, which is why the British military refused to go along with the idea of marching into Germany against the wishes of the Allies. We had nothing to gain from that, because the whole point was to get them out of France.

We had no desire to ruin Germany. In fact, Germany was an important trade partner for us, only not when they were in charge of the North West coast of France. Commentators here, including Keynes, instinctively felt it was a bad idea, unfair and not in our interests to burden Germany with an insurmountable problem, and this explains why re-taking the Rhineland didn't cause a ripple in this country.

Chamberlain followed in the steps of his predecessors. Fair aims such as Germans in one country and re-uniting Germany, then why should we rock a boat that had served us well; invading the non-German Czech part of Czechoslovakia and Poland then that was a different matter. The cat was out of the bag when they went into the remainder of Czechoslovakia and Britain began to prepare for war immediately. Chamberlain's policy was a typically English pragmatic and reasonable policy.

Churchill, widely regarded as the man who turned the country against Appeasement, did no such thing. Britain knew war was coming in 1938 and began to prepare, long before Churchill took office. And, there was no such policy of 'Appeasement'. The majority of Englishman agreed with the Germans on a point of principle that it was their country and their people. As soon as they strayed from this, British policy changed.

As for the United States at Versailles. Obviously Wilson was a liberal and truly believed in the principles of a just peace and self-determination. The problem was that the United States had invested a lot of money into this war and they wanted it back. Most of it was loaned to Britain who passed it on to France and Italy to keep the war effort going. The French and Italians had none to give back, we had some but nowhere near enough. And, so the Americans did an about turn in 1919 and decided they must make Germany pay in order to get their money back.

The War Guilt Clause was not envisaged until the Americans realised the only chance they had to get their money back was from Germany, and in order to do that and make them pay reparations they needed to have the War Guilt Clause inserted into the treaty. The German delegation who walked up the steps in June 1919 had no idea how severe the treaty was going to be, because the Allies stance hardened between the end of the war and this date.

[Fleetwood Mac]

declaration of war in August 1914 against Germany was pegged not on the Balkan business at Sarajevo, but German violation of Belgian neutrality, which was horse of a different color. I don't think any British government could have ignored it.

Jeff,

Right up to the eve of war it was in the balance which way the British Government would go.

In fact, the majority of the liberal cabinet were against the war.

The British Government had given no guarantee to the French or the Germans, and did this deliberately in attempt to deter them from going to war.

The Belgian issue was undoubtedly a factor because it was felt that in the event we did not honour our guarantees we would lose all respect and it follows partners.

There were many competing and conflicting opinions up until the outbreak of war. Germany was a very respected country, and some found it inconceivable that we could fight a war on the side of the Russians against the Germans - the Russians viewed as barbarians; the Germans as highly civilised. Others felt it was a European issue and not our problem.

When it came down to it the British Government felt it was too much of a risk to take that the Germans would defeat the French and control their ports. The Belgium issue was used as the stick to cajole others into coming round to the way of thinking that Britain had no option but to intervene.

Sir Edward Grey, against the war, said something like: "the lights have gone out all over Europe" on the eve of war, and this was pretty much the feeling in England apart from among jingoistic Tories - the end of an era and the good times. Never were truer and more prophetic words spoken.

A huge, terrible mistake from which this country has never recovered. I wonder if Grey truly realised the enormity of the British Government's decision to go to war, and his and his colleagues' actions by not holding steadfast to their guns when a few war hawks in the cabinet, including Churchill, shouted the loudest.

[Mayerling]

Thanks for the responses Fleetwood.

Funny about Churchill - had Britain avoided war in 1914 or 1939 I doubt if many people would recall him today (and I doubt if he would have been Prime Minister).

You got the quote from Edward Grey almost correct: "The lights are going out all over Europe...." Rather striking bit of poetry but he actually was referring to the closing of national embassies between belligerent countries.

I know it was France that somehow got Russia and Britain to ally together in 1907, but I never understood why the alliance stuck. At one point Kaiser Wilhelm II and Czar Nicholas II signed a preliminary draft of a treaty in the gulf on Finland when they met on their yachts, and it actually would have ended the critical Russian - French alliance (and, theoretically the Triple Entente) but the treaty was rejected by Nicholas' advisors when he returned home. Pity.

Somehow the Anglo-Russian alliance never made sense. In fact, during the Russo - Japanese war (in 1905) there was a serious danger of Britain and Russia coming to blows first when a fleet of British trawlers off Dogger Bank were fired on by the nervous Russians, who thought they were being surprised by the Japanese navy.

Jeff

[Mayerling]

As for the United States at Versailles. Obviously Wilson was a liberal and truly believed in the principles of a just peace and self-determination. The problem was that the United States had invested a lot of money into this war and they wanted it back. Most of it was loaned to Britain who passed it on to France and Italy to keep the war effort going. The French and Italians had none to give back, we had some but nowhere near enough. And, so the Americans did an about turn in 1919 and decided they must make Germany pay in order to get their money back.

The War Guilt Clause was not envisaged until the Americans realised the only chance they had to get their money back was from Germany, and in order to do that and make them pay reparations they needed to have the War Guilt Clause inserted into the treaty. The German delegation who walked up the steps in June 1919 had no idea how severe the treaty was going to be, because the Allies stance hardened between the end of the war and this date.

In signing that treaty the German representative Matthias Erzberger signed his death warrant - he was assassinated by Freikorps members in 1921.

Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Thanks for the responses Fleetwood.

Funny about Churchill - had Britain avoided war in 1914 or 1939 I doubt if many people would recall him today (and I doubt if he would have been Prime Minister).

You got the quote from Edward Grey almost correct: "The lights are going out all over Europe...." Rather striking bit of poetry but he actually was referring to the closing of national embassies between belligerent countries.

I know it was France that somehow got Russia and Britain to ally together in 1907, but I never understood why the alliance stuck. At one point Kaiser Wilhelm II and Czar Nicholas II signed a preliminary draft of a treaty in the gulf on Finland when they met on their yachts, and it actually would have ended the critical Russian - French alliance (and, theoretically the Triple Entente) but the treaty was rejected by Nicholas' advisors when he returned home. Pity.

Somehow the Anglo-Russian alliance never made sense. In fact, during the Russo - Japanese war (in 1905) there was a serious danger of Britain and Russia coming to blows first when a fleet of British trawlers off Dogger Bank were fired on by the nervous Russians, who thought they were being surprised by the Japanese navy.

Jeff

Jeff,

The full quote was something like: "the lights are going out all over Europe and we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime". A reference to the end of an era.

We had no real axe to grind with the Germans nor they with us, except that they quite rightly blamed us for maintaining a balance of power in continental Europe; nor where they our enemies and vice versa.

True, we had a naval arms race, but it was over by 1911. They built ships and we built bigger and more ships because it was our lifeblood. They then had a choice to make: compete with their enemies France and Russia in the sphere of the army or compete with us in the sphere of the navy. They couldn't afford to do both. They chose to compete with their historical and current enemies.

For us, we made a choice as far back as the 1880s to keep our enemy, France, close to our chest. We dropped both Germany and Austria, with whom we had previously been on good terms, as it was felt that our interests were best served in locking in France and Russia, our competitors.

It also helped to maintain the balance power on the continent.

The French and Russians were locked in through finance, and so any alliance with France meant an alliance with Russia.

[Fleetwood Mac]

In signing that treaty the German representative Matthias Erzberger signed his death warrant - he was assassinated by Freikorps members in 1921.

Jeff

The whole thing's quite sad really, Jeff, when you consider what Germany gave to the world during the 19th century - to end like it did with the chaos and destruction between 1918 and 1945.

Just goes to show that innovation and creativity will get you a long way, and war will destroy what you've created.

[Robert]

The whole thing's quite sad really, Jeff, when you consider what Germany gave to the world during the 19th century -

but that was when Germany wasn't Germany.



- to end like it did with the chaos and destruction between 1918 and 1945.

You sound surprised.

[Beowulf]

Isn't it strange how at the end of his life he wants forgiveness. Why not before this? Maybe he did ask before this. He probably for years been uncomfortable about the future.

Does he mean 'go lenient on me in court'? If that is what it's all about there is nothing more to say. It's reprehensible.

Or does he think it matters if the public forgives him? Since they are a mass of different people with entirely different viewpoints, even if they all did they would individually treat him differently. He would soon see it wouldn't make him feel any better, really.

If he believes in punishment after this life than he has likely tried to forget what he fears for years and no one can relief stress like that, no matter how nice they are to him. How lenient the court is, his family reactions, he'll never be sure what he fears is ahead for him.

He joined willingly at a young age. I'm sure he did not know of the gas chambers, but he knew of the general animosity.

I would not want those memories on my mind. At 93 he is soon to be heading to his own personal 'final solution'.

What difference does it make if someone says "I forgive you". They leave the room and you still have the memory of what you did. I really think that would amount to a hill of beans in his own personal estimation. It means nothing.

The dead is what he remembers, their suffering, and they are not around to 'forgive' him, not even to ask for it. Their forgiveness would mean maybe a something to him but not really because he will still condemn himself. It is evident by asking for forgiveness he feels guilty. It's a miserable feeling, 24/7. He'd maybe like to get away from that. It may be the real reason for his asking for forgiveness. It may be a selfish motive.

His guilt suggests perhaps more than he might be admitting as to his part exists. I wonder what that is.

The forgiveness part might be an unrealistic hope to cleanse his burden of who he is, what he did, but he can't. He already committed something he personally condemns, even if one thought he was trapped into it. He feels that way. He would have to forgive himself, he cannot. His memories will not let him. His own personal ethics. Then again, would he ask for it if no one knew ever who he really was?

The fact that the human mind has a conscience says a lot about who we are.

God help him.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The whole thing's quite sad really, Jeff, when you consider what Germany gave to the world during the 19th century -

but that was when Germany wasn't Germany.



- to end like it did with the chaos and destruction between 1918 and 1945.

You sound surprised.

Do I? Surprised by an historical fact?

[Robert]

Yes - what did you expect?

[Errata]

Isn't it strange how at the end of his life he wants forgiveness. Why not before this? Maybe he did ask before this. He probably for years been uncomfortable about the future.

Does he mean 'go lenient on me in court'? If that is what it's all about there is nothing more to say. It's reprehensible.

Or does he think it matters if the public forgives him? Since they are a mass of different people with entirely different viewpoints, even if they all did they would individually treat him differently. He would soon see it wouldn't make him feel any better, really.

If he believes in punishment after this life than he has likely tried to forget what he fears for years and no one can relief stress like that, no matter how nice they are to him. How lenient the court is, his family reactions, he'll never be sure what he fears is ahead for him.

He joined willingly at a young age. I'm sure he did not know of the gas chambers, but he knew of the general animosity.

I would not want those memories on my mind. At 93 he is soon to be heading to his own personal 'final solution'.

What difference does it make if someone says "I forgive you". They leave the room and you still have the memory of what you did. I really think that would amount to a hill of beans in his own personal estimation. It means nothing.

The dead is what he remembers, their suffering, and they are not around to 'forgive' him, not even to ask for it. Their forgiveness would mean maybe a something to him but not really because he will still condemn himself. It is evident by asking for forgiveness he feels guilty. It's a miserable feeling, 24/7. He'd maybe like to get away from that. It may be the real reason for his asking for forgiveness. It may be a selfish motive.

His guilt suggests perhaps more than he might be admitting as to his part exists. I wonder what that is.

The forgiveness part might be an unrealistic hope to cleanse his burden of who he is, what he did, but he can't. He already committed something he personally condemns, even if one thought he was trapped into it. He feels that way. He would have to forgive himself, he cannot. His memories will not let him. His own personal ethics. Then again, would he ask for it if no one knew ever who he really was?

The fact that the human mind has a conscience says a lot about who we are.

God help him.

It's one of the reasons I say that the mechanism of forgiveness is wrong. Is he asking because he has a conscience? Should we overlook his lateness to the game and just be glad he showed up at all? Or is he asking because he is terrified? Because if he is asking out of fear, it won't help. Who out there could possibly assuage his fear? Who out there could possibly make him feel better about all of this? That he did terrible things, that he got caught...

If forgiveness is about the person who wrongs, forgiveness has failed. Because the act of forgiveness cannot be done out of fear or pity, and it can't change anything. If it is about the person who is wronged, then some good can come of it. If I forgive to make myself feel better, I can start to heal. I can start to let go and move on. A wronged party can use forgiveness not only to reshape his own life after the fact, but he can shape the life of the person who wronged him. But that only works if it is universally understood that forgiveness is a gift to the victim. Not to the transgressor.

Asking for forgiveness is like asking for a band aid for a missing limb. Not only will it not help even a little, it's a waste of a band aid. Asking to forgive someone is an act of power, and an act of strength. It means more, it does more. For both parties. Any transaction between two parties, whether it be practical, spiritual or emotional has to be between equals. And forgiveness is needed for a fundamentally unequal relationship. But in order to give it, the relationship must be equal. If the offender is stronger, it's not forgiveness it's fear. If the victim is stronger, it's not forgiveness, it's pity. So they must be equal, and the only way to be equal is for the offender to be completely submissive to the will of the victim. To know that they have no power over whether or not that forgiveness comes. There is no deserving it, no asking for it, no demanding it. Just being open to it.

The Forgiveness Project is an amazing thing.

[Robert]

You cannot be forgiven if your victims are dead.

You might be forgiven by the relatives of the victims, but only for the hurt you've done them, not for the hurt you've done the victims.

The general public cannot forgive because the general public are not the victims. If I am sitting next to a man on the train, and a third man treads on that man's foot, I'd have to be crazy to say to the man "I forgive you for treading on his foot."

[Errata]

You cannot be forgiven if your victims are dead.

You might be forgiven by the relatives of the victims, but only for the hurt you've done them, not for the hurt you've done the victims.

The general public cannot forgive because the general public are not the victims. If I am sitting next to a man on the train, and a third man treads on that man's foot, I'd have to be crazy to say to the man "I forgive you for treading on his foot."

Then it might be fair to say then that no one can be forgiven. One can only forgive. And forgiving oneself for mistakes and wrongdoing is often the single hardest thing a person will ever do. Maybe that's what this old man needs to do. Forgive himself sincerely, despite the wrongs he knows he did, despite the reasons he knows aren't good enough. And be content with that. It's the only forgiveness that will give him comfort, ease his fears, and give him any real feeling of relief. To put it another way, you can't make someone feel good about themselves no matter how many nice things you say. A person has to do that for themselves. And what is the need for forgiveness if not the need to stop feeling bad about yourself?

[Amanda]

This man has lived a long life, brought children into the world and been able to function in society without previously being brought to trial for his actions.

You really think he needs to forgive himself? I'm sorry, anyone with an ounce of guilt would not be able to live with their actions for decades. He may not have had a physical part in sending prisoners to the gas chambers but he was still a member of a screwed up system. And at no point did he stand up and say 'You know what, this is wrong'.
Whatever the outcome, he will now leave his family with the stigma of being guilty by association. That in itself is not the action of a man who feels the need to forgive himself.
Amanda

[Robert]

Still keeping off this particular case, which is sub judice :

I can imagine someone forgiving himself for something he's done to himself, e.g. he screws up his life and ends up sick, friendless and penniless. He might forgive himself.

Or with the thousand and one things kids do to make their parents' lives hell, e.g. kid throws tantrum because his hard-up parents can't buy him the latest toy. He was. after all, only a child.

But the idea of someone who has committed mass murder forgiving himself, I find quite bizarre.

There is a way of trying to feel better about oneself, or at least not quite so bad, and that's to try and repay the debt. E.g. person A commits some act of negligence which causes the death of person B. Years later circs arise whereby person A can give up his life to save the life of person B's son.