Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Medium of Death wrote:
A more fitting and relevant apology would be from the Catholic church for not condoning contraception in Africa, which allowed AIDS to become much more widespread.

Or they could just start condoning it.

Please don't turn this into a Catholic bashing thread.

It's not 'Catholic Bashing', it's an actual stance that they continue to have or at least had for a good while.

It is a completely disgusting and irresponsible attitude that has inflicted untold suffering upon millions of people.

I think apologising for it is far more relevant to us today than some German doctors apologising for the holocaust.

Medium of Death wrote:A more fitting and relevant apology would be from the Catholic church for not condoning contraception in Africa, which allowed AIDS to become much more widespread.

In the game of trolling, that move is described as "herp takes derp, checkmate." The Catholic Church also teaches people that sexual contact outside of marriage is gravely sinful. If people refuse to listen to the Church about that, and always have, I don't see any reason to expect that Africans would suddenly be overwhelmingly obedient regarding the Church's teaching regarding condoms. Maybe, just maybe, something else is going on ...

I suppose you follow the bible word for word then, yeah?

Medium of Death wrote:I suppose you follow the bible word for word then, yeah?

It'd help if you just came out and made whatever ridiculous point you have in mind.

Manchu, you are classic case of why modern secular thinking people have little time or respect for Religion.

In a nutshell, you are intelligent, articulate, easy to get along with and entirely logical and reasonable, and yet when it comes to your Religion, entirely the opposite of reasonable.

Namely, the answer you are looking for with regards to the Catholic churches utterly, utterly deplorable behavior on this topic is not "well, if they dont listen to one stance, why would they listen to the other!" its simply

"Yes, its fethed up lads"

I mean.. can you not see that in the cold light of day? I know plenty of (granted pretty sloppy catholics) but ive never met a single on not hold their hands up on this issue. Just because your pretty devout are you really going to sit there and say that

In 2003, contrary to empirical evidence, the In 2003, contrary to empirical evidence, the president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family - "senior spokesman" Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo - claimed that condoms are permeable to the aids virus. He explained to BBC interviewers that "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom." These false claims were echoed by an archbishop of Nairobi, as well as by Catholics as far Asia and Latin America. Also according to The Guardian, the BBC confirmed that this misinformation has real, damaging effects at the ground level

Isn't a big deal?! To just write it off as "well, if they listened to us better in the first place..." is really pretty screwed up to me.

And why do you lads have to instantly call any and and all criticisms towards a faith group "bashing" Religion? We almost all get along well enough, can you not simply point out a criticism and talk it out like adults without it being referred to as some awful bigoted slander? The Catholic church does plenty of good all around the world, and is responsible for plenty of kindness and charity. Nobody would say that isn't the case, but surely if you can hold your hands up to one, you can hold them up to the clearly and obviously fethed up stuff, such as the abuse/condoms scandal without getting petty and trying to deny it or defend the indefensible.

There is no way you will find an entirely independent fair minded observer who would say that what the Church did not make a few fethed up decisions on those two topics, lets have that said in black and white.

Medium of Death wrote:It's not 'Catholic Bashing', it's an actual stance that they continue to have or at least had for a good while.

It is a completely disgusting and irresponsible attitude that has inflicted untold suffering upon millions of people.

I think apologising for it is far more relevant to us today than some German doctors apologising for the holocaust.

Contraception violates their moral ethics. Why in the world would they apologize for advocating what they think is right?
What, exactly, is your point? That they should take a stance of "If you're going to sin, do so safely?"

Claiming that condoms play no role in the prevention of AIS is ludicrous and just because someone is a bishop in the Church doesn't mean I'll defend their ludicrous position.

And yet it is still absurd to compare the systematic murder of European Jewry with the teaching that contraception is inherently wrong.

Almost no Catholic people in the western world could give two gaks about what the pope has to say regarding contraception. We recently found out that in the US, for example, 90% of all Catholic women use contraception. I'd bet the decision to be sexually active outside of marriage, regardless of the Church's position on that topic, plays some part in some of our decisions to use contraception.

In Africa, people clearly don't give two gaks about what the Church has to say on sexual contact outside of marriage. The Africans are as eager to rut as the Europeans and North Americans. Why they don't want to use condoms can't be laid at the door of the Church. Yes, the Church tells them they shouldn't -- just like the Church tells us we shouldn't.

Being a grown-up, even if you are religious, means taking some kind of responsibility for the consequences of your actions. If you want to feth strangers, fine. No priest can stop you, whether in the UK or in Tanzania. If you decide not to wrap it, then don't blame that on the priest, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

deathholydeath wrote:That they should take a stance of "If you're going to sin, do so safely?"

That's what most Catholics who have sex seem to think, outside of Africa at least. Just because I think so doesn't mean I'll ever try to convince a priest to tell me that and for him to pretend that it's okay with him.

A more relevant example for this topic is John Paul II apologizing about the Galileo trial. That was even worse bs than these German doctors.

Manchu wrote:

deathholydeath wrote:That they should take a stance of "If you're going to sin, do so safely?"

That's what most Catholics who have sex seem to think, outside of Africa at least. Just because I think so doesn't mean I'll ever try to convince a priest to tell me that and for him to pretend that it's okay with him.

I agree. The responsibility for personal actions lies with the individual. Individual Catholics taking such a stance isn't surprising or unwarranted. But I would never expect the Vatican to follow suit. For the most part, in the world of today, people are free to enter and leave religions as they see fit. Don't like what the Pope says? Leave or ignore him. The actions and consequences are yours alone.

Manchu wrote:
A more relevant example for this topic is John Paul II apologizing about the Galileo trial. That was even worse bs than these German doctors.

That is even worse. Absolutely ridiculous, and exactly the type of thing I was talking about.

This is actually relevant to the German doctors: for years, they've pretended what they did wasn't their fault because it was what the "powers that be" told them to do. Now they are admitting that they can't legitimately blame others. It's just unfortunate that the ones now apologizing are probably not the ones who blamed others before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:

Manchu wrote:A more relevant example for this topic is John Paul II apologizing about the Galileo trial. That was even worse bs than these German doctors.

That is even worse. Absolutely ridiculous, and exactly the type of thing I was talking about.

Not even close. The trial is one of those things that everyone thinks they know about but almost no one actually knows anything about. Suffice it to say, it was not a debate between Richard Dawkins and a pedophile.

Manchu wrote:This is actually relevant to the German doctors: for years, they've pretended what they did wasn't their fault because it was what the "powers that be" told them to do. Now they are admitting that they can't legitimately blame others. It's just unfortunate that the ones now apologizing are probably not the ones who blamed others before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:

Manchu wrote:A more relevant example for this topic is John Paul II apologizing about the Galileo trial. That was even worse bs than these German doctors.

That is even worse. Absolutely ridiculous, and exactly the type of thing I was talking about.

Not even close. The trial is one of those things that everyone thinks they know about but almost no one actually knows anything about. Suffice it to say, it was not a debate between Richard Dawkins and a pedophile.

I think you have got me wrong there mate, I was in full agreement with you.

Maybe I should have wrote it.. "That IS even worse!"

Ah, I see -- I did totally misunderstand you.

Unfortunately for the Church, this is exactly the sort of thing that John Paul II was fond of doing.

Germany self flagellates because they are taught to do so. Holocaust is good copy, it brings in compensation and lets Israel know that they have carte blanche to do anything to win, because Jews are proven the worlds victims.
If there was less capital to be made this issue would be over, remembered but over. After all if 'mans inhumanity to man' is a lesson to be learned from the Palestinians would be in for humane treatment, oh wait.

Medium of Death wrote:I'm not sure where 10 million comes from to be honest. I thought it was quite well established to be around 6 million. Not that it makes it any better.

Six million is unfortunately a commonly quoted figure, it is the total of Jews that perished in the death camp system. A proper rememberance will add an additional one million non Jews who died, for a total of seven million victims of the death camps.
The additional three million refers to estimated summary non-judicial killings. The medical profession feels the need to apologise for that because some of those died under hospital based 'euthanasia programs' for the elderly and disabled.

Battle casualties are not included in the ten million total.

Manchu wrote:Ah, I see -- I did totally misunderstand you.

Unfortunately for the Church, this is exactly the sort of thing that John Paul II was fond of doing.

Aye why he felt the need to apologise over a 400 year old incident is baffling, as I said, its a grand nonsense, pointless hollow apologies from people that never had anything to do with said act just seem totally pointless. And how sorry can you be if you ahd feth all to do with it anyway?!

I mean, if my missus says "sooo-rrrry" in a sarcastic manner it annoys me more than if she just kept her fething mouth shut! I imagine that is how I would feel If I was a black bloke who had never been a slave, whose grand parents weren't slaves, when listening to Gordon Brown "humbly apologise" for slavery, that ended two hundred years before he was born!? I think I would just think "Er.. what you talking for?"

My Grandads brother died in WW2, I really don't feel I need a random German bloke to come and say "sorry mate, apparently my granddad might have blew your great uncles face off?"

As I said, what really is the point in any of it other than keeping open old wounds and reminding people that they should carrying on feeling entitled and pissed off?

And they shouldnt by the way.. which is why I think fake apologies utterly devoid of any culpability its totally counter productive.

Medium of Death wrote:I'm not sure where 10 million comes from to be honest. I thought it was quite well established to be around 6 million. Not that it makes it any better.

6 million is only the Jews and only under the Nazis. The Holocaust includes some 3 million Soviet POWs, 2 million Poles, and as many as 1.5 million Gypsies plus another quarter to half million mixed undesirables.

mattyrm wrote:
In a nutshell, you are intelligent, articulate, easy to get along with and entirely logical and reasonable, and yet when it comes to your Religion, entirely the opposite of reasonable.

I feel like this describes me as well...maybe not easy to get along with, but extremely unreasonable when it comes to religion.

Ahem.

Back on topic, I see no reason why Germans or Japanese should have to apologize. Not because I think what the Nazis or the IJA did wasn't atrocious (it absolutely was atrocious) but because people who weren't even alive at the time these things happened can't really take the blame.

Using the IJA as an example:

During the second Sino-Japanese war, Japan was under the control of a thoroughly evil military dictatorial government. The vast majority of the Japanese civilian population didn't even know exactly what was going on in Korea or China, and even if they had, couldn't have done diddly squat about it. How could the descendants of people who had no control (and no personal responsibility) over the atrocities possibly have any control or responsibility for them when they weren't born until AFTER the events happened? That's like blaming a small boy for something his grandfather did when he (his grandfather) was 12.

deathholydeath wrote:

Contraception violates their moral ethics.

What moral ethics?

The same one's that allow them them to facilitate, harbor and cover up child molesters?

d-usa wrote:Is it significant because it is just some Germans saying they are sorry, or because it is a medical body that also existed during those times?

It is not just Germans saying they are sorry, it is also a group of people that took an oath to heal who probably also want to reaffirm that oath and make sure that they will never betray it the way their former professional coworkers did.

People might be upset about some Germans saying they are sorry in 2012, but how many of us really have a stake in the fire here?

Hey, someone actually clicked on that link after all !
It's not so much about apologising, indeed, as it is about acknowledging the historic role of their order in the horrors of the Holocaust. It's less about them saying "sorry" and more about them saying "yes, we (as an entity, not as individuals) did it, and no, we were not coerced into doing it". So if nothing else, that's a pretty relevant piece of the puzzle to further our understanding of the events.

For SCIE- wait, ehm... HISTORY !

And yeah, there are few things more universally irritating than people apologising in others' place. Misplaced feelings of guilt are annoyingly widespread regarding such topics, but I'll be damned if I feel an ounce of guilt for colonisation or slavery. I had no hand in it, and I won't apologise for someone else who did, and I don't expect anyone in the same kind of situation to do so.

About Japan, I think the population is largely uninterested by the matter. Note it is common around the world for a population to have little awareness of their country's dirty laundry, and there might be a case of cultural apathy as well there.
Besides, the whole thing is way, way too convenient a tool for the Chinese authorities for them to let it die. Need to distract the population from, say, "imperfections" in the regime ? Why, point them to a supposedly unapologetic foreign archenemy and voilà ! You stirred a nationalistic fervour that united the country against an external opponent and made everyone forget their complaints.

Manchu wrote:I suppose the one thing this could stand for is the idea that Germans shouldn't be pointing fingers at "those Nazis" when it was really everybody -- and that would be a good lesson because, in subtle ways, its still is everybody (and not just the Germans, either).

Yeah, I've noticed that Germans tend to use the apologist language "Nazi" when referring to the Third Reich while the rest of Europe uses the term "German." We should always avoid passive language and make firm statements about who was responsible. The Nazis were extremely popular, and none of the Germans, except for only a few you occasionally hear about on the History Channel, did anything to stop the Holocaust. The Germans, at least during this time period, were the Nazis.

I admit that I have a hard time fairly often with "anti German" thoughts, but at least I know at some level that they're wrong. That's generally the case almost all the time; I always know where reality is, even if there are times when I completely ignore it. However, I think it is important to consider the historical context of the "suffering" of the Germans. While I don't support taking sides, it's completely ahistorical and apologist to make it seem as though the British randomly firebombed German cities for no reason.

Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:

Manchu wrote:I suppose the one thing this could stand for is the idea that Germans shouldn't be pointing fingers at "those Nazis" when it was really everybody -- and that would be a good lesson because, in subtle ways, its still is everybody (and not just the Germans, either).

Yeah, I've noticed that Germans tend to use the apologist language "Nazi" when referring to the Third Reich while the rest of Europe uses the term "German." We should always avoid passive language and make firm statements about who was responsible. The Nazis were extremely popular, and none of the Germans, except for only a few you occasionally hear about on the History Channel, did anything to stop the Holocaust. The Germans, at least during this time period, were the Nazis.

Does this include the Italians and Austrians? Those are some very broad strokes you're brushing with there.

I admit that I have a hard time fairly often with "anti German" thoughts, but at least I know at some level that they're wrong. That's generally the case almost all the time; I always know where reality is, even if there are times when I completely ignore it. However, I think it is important to consider the historical context of the "suffering" of the Germans.

Heh...sorry, what?

While I don't support taking sides, it's completely ahistorical and apologist to make it seem as though the British randomly firebombed German cities for no reason.

Of course they had a reason for firebombing cities.

Don't say that! The Gestapo might get cross!

Ah, Hans from 'Allo 'Allo. What would we do without you?

As a German, I approve of this apology. I think a lot of people misinterpret the meaning of this action - it has nothing to do with individuals "self-flagellating" but is entirely about communities, organizations and/or nations taking responsibility.

I would assume that none of the delegates of the German Medical Association who signed this apology have actively participated in events 70 years ago. The community of German physicians they belong to, however, did. And this it needs to accept, for when people start proudly proclaiming they are following some tradition, then any wrongdoings that were perpretrated in the name of this tradition must be acknowledged as well, lest you simply end up with a drastically twisted perception of it after some time has passed. We've seen this many times throughout history.

It is, like Chowderhead said, a method of trying to prevent this from ever happening again. Apologies such as these serve to sensitivize the members of this organization as well as the general public and thus educate them about the dark sides of something that still exerts an all too seductive fascination on many, especially young people.

In short, an apology such as this undermines certain groups' efforts that these things didn't happen, and to remind people of the terrible price that comes with following or defending such ideologies.

Evidently, this is still necessary, as there's way too many German kids growing up with a lack of knowledge in this area, some times in the company of elders who simply ignore it or claim it didn't happen in spite of what everyone should know. The Western part of Germany, which has assimilated the Eastern part about two decades ago, was never properly de-nazified. You had SS and Gestapo officers joining the BND (Germany's secret service), and Volkstribunal "blood judges" continueing to hold their profession in the courts of the new government. Many party members became politicians, one even Bundeskanzler (Kiesinger). Have a wild guess what kind of mentality this has bred amongst the elite.
Fortunately, most if not all of these people are now too old to continue holding an office, though it stands to reason that they had a hand in selecting their various successors. Might explain why the German justice system and the police are at times somewhat slow to react to violence perpretrated against immigrants, or even partake in it. Much of the reason for this can be found in the chaos that a lack of funds and manpower brings, but there are cases known where the leadership actively attempted to cover up wrongdoings or prevent an investigation, for example by transferring officers who are "too successful" in exposing/arresting criminal neo-nazis. Solidarity in the force or tolerance of dangerous extremists? Hard to say, but when a move to outlaw the NPD (right-wing political party) for criminal activities fails because many of these activities were effected by intelligence infiltrators, questions arise. Just like it happened recently again, as German newspapers exposed that the authorities have known of the homicidal "Zwickau terror-cell" and simply chose not to act on their knowledge, or that the people who have supplied members of this cell with weapons and shelter have recently been set free. In spite of being a melting pot of cultures, "everyday racism" (the small things, meaning bias and prejudice as opposed to open violence) is also way too prevalent in German society, though this also has to do with economy and mankind's need to point fingers at others.

Make no mistake. I do not believe in a sudden flare of mass scale right-wing extremist thinking in the German populace at all - the general public is too liberal and docile - but the potential to have groups of people form up to pursue such agenda or even succeed in installing members in key positions of the government has never been eradicated for good. It is for this reason, the public needs to remain aware, lest it may happen again. Not tomorrow. Not in a year. Not even in ten years. But twenty?

Also, do not believe that basic school education in Germany covers this sort of stuff well enough to leave an impression when your history class tries to condense the entire WW2 into 40-50 hours. If it hadn't been for me volunteering for an essay on the Pacific theatre, my class wouldn't even have gotten to know that Japan was involved. Current basic education in Germany is gak as it focuses way too much on trying to cover everything, but nothing right or in detail. People who want to know more need to read it up for themselves. Good luck getting your average kid to do so in his/her spare time.
In short: The average German school kid will be told about concentration camps and gas chambers, but not about the medical experiments conducted there. The stuff this apology is about is considered "optional".

And as to that other topic - yeah, the Church needs to take responsibility for a lot of its actions as well. Especially as some of them extend up to the present day.

The US ought to be more like Germany. Seriously. We have way too much national pride and respect for ourselves. If we had really low self esteem like Germany, then we'd probably think more about what we're doing.

LoneLictor wrote:The US ought to be more like Germany. Seriously. We have way too much national pride and respect for ourselves. If we had really low self esteem like Germany, then we'd probably think more about what we're doing.

Plus, as tourists we could all get up early, stake out the best pool chairs with towels, and then go back to bed. Hilarity ensues.

Lynata wrote:nty?

Also, do not believe that basic school education in Germany covers this sort of stuff well enough to leave an impression when your history class tries to condense the entire WW2 into 40-50 hours. If it hadn't been for me volunteering for an essay on the Pacific theatre, my class wouldn't even have gotten to know that Japan was involved. Current basic education in Germany is gak as it focuses way too much on trying to cover everything, but nothing right or in detail. People who want to know more need to read it up for themselves. Good luck getting your average kid to do so in his/her spare time.
In short: The average German school kid will be told about concentration camps and gas chambers, but not about the medical experiments conducted there. The stuff this apology is about is considered "optional".

To be fair that amount of time on WW2 is probably more than what most western countries have. In Australia a lot of attention is focused on areas like Gallipoli and other actions where Australia first established itself as a military force of some substance. Even when we covered WW2 at least half of it was on the Pacific arena, I would be surprised if we had more than 20-25 hours discussing the Western front, and a lot of that was if you took Modern History instead of Ancient History.

I'm rambling, but my point is should we really expect the children of Germany to cover every confronting and shameful detail of what occurred in the camps when our own education systems don't discuss it in a huge amount of detail either?

Hazardous Harry wrote:To be fair that amount of time on WW2 is probably more than what most western countries have. In Australia a lot of attention is focused on areas like Gallipoli and other actions where Australia first established itself as a military force of some substance. Even when we covered WW2 at least half of it was on the Pacific arena, I would be surprised if we had more than 20-25 hours discussing the Western front, and a lot of that was if you took Modern History instead of Ancient History.

It's somewhat understandable - every country is focusing mostly on its own history; events that happened elsewhere are discussed only when they were truly somewhat relevant for global development (such as the French Revolution).

Hazardous Harry wrote:I'm rambling, but my point is should we really expect the children of Germany to cover every confronting and shameful detail of what occurred in the camps when our own education systems don't discuss it in a huge amount of detail either?

That's a tough question. But maybe we should, because it happened in that very country, and by learning about it they'd hopefully grow up being "aware" of where such ideologies lead to. Every nation with something like this in the past should teach its succeeding generations, be it US massacres vs Native Americans and Vietnamese, or Japan and Unit 731, to name just two examples. Or Australia and its now-defunct policy of Aboriginal rehabilitation (i.e. legalized kidnapping).

Confrontation with such actions of the past should breed a certain amount of humility in the population. Just the right amount of shame to kick that kind of superiority thinking ("my nation is the best! everyone else sucks!") out of people's heads, because deep down every country has some skeletons in its closet. There's nothing wrong with feeling a certain sense of pride for belonging to a nation due to its contemporary achievements, but this should not serve to "whitewash" the past and simply dismiss the bad stuff as if it never happened, lest everything will happen again some day. It is important to see both sides of the medal.

Personally, I believe that schools should put greater emphasis on history, anyways - because the past has more to teach us than the knowledge of what kind of chemical reaction happens in a blast furnace or how to calculate pi to the umpteenth digit. There's so much unimportant gak being taught in schools that people will never, ever use again in their life ... might as well educate the kids better about the past, including that of other nations. I'm not suggesting that kids should learn only history at school, but 1-2 hours per week is definitively not enough imho.

Lynata wrote:It's somewhat understandable - every country is focusing mostly on its own history; events that happened elsewhere are discussed only when they were truly somewhat relevant for global development (such as the French Revolution).

Australia doesn't really have an extensive history to speak off, we're probably one of the youngest Western nations in the world. Anything pre-1750's is either a look at British history or the unrecorded and vauge aboriginal history. So I can see how established countries like France, Germany, Russia and Japan might not put such a huge amount of weight on the last hundred years, because for them it's only one tenth of their recorded history.

That's a tough question. But maybe we should, because it happened in that very country, and by learning about it they'd hopefully grow up being "aware" of where such ideologies lead to. Every nation with something like this in the past should teach its succeeding generations, be it US massacres vs Native Americans and Vietnamese, or Japan and Unit 731, to name just two examples. Or Australia and its now-defunct policy of Aboriginal rehabilitation (i.e. legalized kidnapping).

You're right, of course. But I don't think that it should be especially expected of German youths to study this area, when the horrors of industrial-levels of genocide should serve as an example to all. It is a unique occurrence in history, but I don't think that the children of the country that was responsible should be continuously burdened with it simply because of where they were born, "sins of the father" and all that.

As far the 'Lost Generation' in Australia I can tell you that it was a horrible policy that had serious in-built flaws and left thousands of children open to abuse to relatively unobserved foster homes, but it isn't as simple as simple as 'legalized kidnapping'. There are instances where removing the child from the parent was certainly in the best interests of the child, such as the case where an 8-year-old had been 'promised' for marriage to a 30-something male when she turned 12. The serious flaw is that aboriginal families were legislatively much more at risk of losing their children, simply because being aboriginal was considered enough to establish that they were an unfit parent.

Confrontation with such actions of the past should breed a certain amount of humility in the population. Just the right amount of shame to kick that kind of superiority thinking ("my nation is the best! everyone else sucks!") out of people's heads, because deep down every country has some skeletons in its closet. There's nothing wrong with feeling a certain sense of pride for belonging to a nation due to its contemporary achievements, but this should not serve to "whitewash" the past and simply dismiss the bad stuff as if it never happened, lest everything will happen again some day. It is important to see both sides of the medal.

Personally, I believe that schools should put greater emphasis on history, anyways - because the past has more to teach us than the knowledge of what kind of chemical reaction happens in a blast furnace or how to calculate pi to the umpteenth digit. There's so much unimportant gak being taught in schools that people will never, ever use again in their life ... might as well educate the kids better about the past, including that of other nations. I'm not suggesting that kids should learn only history at school, but 1-2 hours per week is definitively not enough imho.

I pretty much agree entirely.

Long story, please bear with me!

I had the pleasure of talking to an elderly customer of mine the other day who was telling me his (fascinating) story about his life.
In a nutshell he was a German soldier in WWII. He was captured in 1944 in France by the Americans and interned there as a POW until the end of the war. When hostilities ended the Americans washed their hands of the entire POW camp and turned them over to the Russians.
All the officers were executed and the rest shipped to a concentration camp within Russia itself. People died there on a daily basis, he had tears in his eyes as he told me but didn't want to talk about it much beyond that he buried several friends and comrades.
Luckily this story had a happy ending, this chap managed to escape the camp and eventualy made his way to England. He faced strong anti-German prejudice for many years but eventualy started a succesfull business and settled down with an English woman and loves this country dearly.

His outlook on the whole affair is that the Nazis were ultimately responsible for the suffering he and his comrades suffered, and he doesn't blame the Russians one bit for the terrible treatment he received. He looks at it that they were just reciprocating to the terrible abuses heaped upon their people and he was an easy target.

He maintains that ordinary, deployed 'rank & file' German soldiers knew very little about the horrors being visited upon the Gypsy/Jewish/Polish communities within the German sphere of influence, and that they would have deserted if they knew.
He also thinks that anyone who knew and took part in the atrocities is directly culpable for their own actions, irrespective of whether they were ordered or not.