Hello Terry Duncan,
Unfortunately we have another case of ljadw posting nonsense to suit his/her own ahistorical paradigms.
During our previous discussion, you warned me to be wary of "
language" issues between posters. Translation is one of the devices that ljadw regularly and deliberately uses to distort historical reality. A few days ago in another thread, ljadw claims that niederzuwerfen = crush = eliminate. The first part (niederzuwerfen = crush) is the translation used by the Nuremburg prosecutors and is solid. The second part (crush = eliminate) is all of ljadw's own making. His/her version of history needs niederzuwerfen to mean eliminate, so he/she makes up his/her own translating and language meaning rules.
Terry Duncan wrote:ljadw wrote:Guilt and responsibility are 2 different things : there was no Guilt Clause .
Given Article 231 has been known as 'the war guilt clause' since the time of the treaty, I really dont see the point in quibbling about it, especially since the Germans has a specific Kriegsschuldfrage department - I am far from an expert in German, knowing little more than a few basic phrases, but doesnt that translate as 'war guilt' department?
And here we go again.
The "
guilt clause" does not include the word
guilt. On that basis alone, the argument rests that the "
guilt clause" is not a "
guilt clause". However, it is a rather simplistic and naive argument to make. But it seems to be the argument that ljadw is using.
Moreover, the way he presents "
Guilt and responsibility are 2 different things" is just plain wrong. It's making up his/her own language rules again.
The word guilt has in common useage two distinct meanings. One is related to (bad)
feeling, the other to
responsibility of action. Consider these two sentences:
1) She remembered with a pang of
guilt that she hadn't called her mother. (guilt as a feeling)
2) The prosecution's task in a case is to establish a person's
guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. (guilt as in responsibility)
In the first sentence, guilt has nothing to do with responsibility. In the second, the prosecution has no interest in the person's feelings only their responsibility over alleged actions.
Article 231 is considered the "
guilt clause"
because it directs
responsibility towards Germany and its allies.
What the original poster seems to been quite unable to grasp is that what his/her teachers told him/her about it being a "
guilt clause" is a separate point to what the academic was trying to put across. The two are not contradictory.
ljadw's latter efforts are little more than trolling.
The only point of discussion as far as I can see from this issue is why many authors describe Germans seeing themselves as being held solely responsible when the words clearly state "Germany
and her allies". As in all wars, the victors claim the spoils and punish the vanquished. All of the vanquished were equally tarnished. All of the victors claimed the moral high ground and seized the vanquished's treasure.