Conference taveng::bagels

    There is an important difference between someone who embraced Nazism
    knowing of the alternatives and someone who was raised in a Nazi
    environment.  If the person referred to was 17 in 1945, he was only
    four years old when the Nazis came to power.  Even at 17 it is not
    clear that, in context of Nazi-controlled communications, he would have
    understood what was going on.  Before either embracing or rejecting him
    I would want to know what he did and said after 1945 and what he is
    doing and saying today in the context of current events in Germany.
    
    Aaron

    I saw the program as well and to Aaron's point, it's hard to see this
    in its proper context.  For one thing, all we saw were 15 minutes out
    of 3 intense days, and we only saw the 15 minutes Stone Phillips and NBC 
    thought important enough to air.  Knowing that, I think it's pretty 
    difficult to gauge what really took place thee.
    
    But seeing what I *did* see, when the older man was saying (in German -
    translated to English) that he wasn't aware of the anti-Semitism of the
    Hitler Youth, his eyes darted left and then came back to center. 
    Perhaps this means nothing - but I was in a course on Negotiations last
    year and the instructor related that this type of eye movement is
    almost always indicative of a lie (he found it most distressing when he
    confronted a business partner about embezlement of company funds and
    his reaction included this type of eye movement).
    
    Whether or not his body language betrayed him as a liar, more
    importantly was what was *missing* from the broadcast.  The man didn't
    (to my recollection) apologize for his participation (unless I missed
    it).  
    
    Let's assume that from 1945 to the time of this meeting, he didn't know 
    that the Hitler Youth was anti-Semitic (which would appear to me to be
    completely impossible - but say you've given him the benefit of the
    doubt).  He certainly found out it was at this meeting.  It would seem
    the least he could do would be to apologize.
    
    However, Stone Phillips was quick to offer that the older man was clearly
    pained by his past.  Hmmmm...was Stone watching the same show I was?
    
    The thing that amazed me most from the broadcast was how that one man
    (Berkowitz was it?) was reaching out to a woman whose father was a nazi 
    responsible for killing his (Berkowitz') family (though his father
    escaped I believe).  It's as though he was helping her out with her 
    guilt - putting aside the temptation to take it out on her.  That moment 
    struck me as pretty amazing.
    
    All in all though, I think we didn't see enough of what took place to
    be able to make any reasonable judgements.  I got the sense that the
    intent of the program *may* have been to say "there - see - the
    children on both sides have reconciled, so let's put this behind us
    now" and if that's the case, I'm not interested, thanks.  If the intent
    was to show that healing (without sweeping facts under the rug) is
    possible...I think that should be explored.
    
    Steve

    re: .2
    
>    But seeing what I *did* see, when the older man was saying (in German -
>    translated to English) that he wasn't aware of the anti-Semitism of the
>    Hitler Youth

    I think we are essentially in agreement.  For someone to say that he
    was a member of the HY and was not aware of the organization's anti-
    Semitism is not credible.  What I would have expected was a statement
    to the effect that he didn't understand at the time that anti-Semitism
    was wrong.  I would also have looked for an expression of regret.  Just
    in case anyone was unclear about my comment, I was not advocating
    uncritical acceptance of offers of reconciliation;  I was pointing out
    that people can change and one needs to consider each case, especially
    when it involved youthful behavior.
    
    (I've read about the event, but did not see the TV program, so I am not
    in a position to comment on this particular case.)

     Aaron

    re .0
    
    The character of the SS changed with time, too: by the end of the war,
    the Waffen SS ("Armed SS") had become a parallel army, with tens of
    thousands of soldiers (I don't have details, sorry).  You can't find
    that many ideologues.  By late 1944 the Germans were desparate for
    able-bodied men, and were taking the very old and very young (the
    Volkssturm included 13 and 14 year olds, for example).
    
    There also wouldn't have been much choice about joining the HY in the
    1940's, and it's quite possible that most boys treated the propaganda
    as I remember treating formulae in Boy Scouts: you just mumble the
    phrases and it never means anything to you.  I suspect that the war
    as a "Germans vs. Allies" was far more interesting to them.
    
    On the other hand, it strains belief that the massive post-war effort
    by the occupying Allies to educate and de-Nazify Germany would not have
    reached a teenager, nor that the continuing interest in the war would
    have failed to make an impact in the intervening fifty years.
    
    There was another famous meeting a few years ago, of children of high-level
    Nazis.  They clearly had deep wounds from parental neglect before the
    end of the war and guilt upon reaching an understanding of what their
    parents had been doing, if I can believe the article (New York Time Sunday
    magazine, I think).
    
    		-John Bishop

    I also did not see this program.
    
    As a medium, television is highly susceptible to manipulation.  We can
    only speculate about what occured during the 3 day workshop.  As a
    previous noter wrote, the viewers only saw 15 minutes out of the whole,
    and that 15 minutes itself was highly edited, as is true with all tv
    segments.  It is possible that the elderly man had already acknowledged
    guilt and apologized before the scene viewers saw of reconciliation. 
    We can't know that without a much more extensive tv report.
    
    What I do strongly question are NBC's motives in airing this.  Again,
    not having seen it, I don't know the program's slant.  But the
    overdubbed narration and music, editing, and reporter comments before
    and after the taped material would reveal a lot to any student of the
    medium.
    
    I personally would prefer that the segment producer display a clear
    stand about the material, and provide explicit framing information.
    
    Laura