Just a few words on this. While its true that East-Germanys efforts to "de-nazify" the state where greater than in the west, to conclude that East-Germanies institutions did not tolerate former Nazi officials would be a mistake: 1/9
that's not what "exception proves a rule" means. that's for when you can infer a rule from an exception and dannn's tweets don't really tell us anything about anything else
Edit: I edited my comment, what do you think? I actually started to second guess my word choice right after I posted so I'm curious what you would write instead.
uh i dunno, i guess i'd say that only pointing out one guy undermines the argument he's trying to make (about leadership?) but then he also claims:
And the military wasn't the only place where ex-nazis had no trouble filling in. According to the work of historian Jan Foitzek in 1954, 27% of all SED members were formerly members of the Nazi Party. Even higher is the number of civil servants approx. 32% 5/9
which is potentially a better argument but is, for me, contextless because i've never heard of Foitzek and I don't know what "members" means here or if being a member of the SED and of the nazi party means the same thing, if you're still a former nazi if you quit after the night of long knives, what a civil servant is etc.
i don't have the full comments open but somebody in here made a point about von braun being in charge of shit and the soviet program being run by a soviet and that's a great point. I probably care less about the kind of former nazi who is a county clerk than i do about the kind of former nazi who is founding NATO.
SED literally includes the NDPD I mentioned in my comment, a party that was explicitly former wehrmacht with the purpose of containing them. As always Three Seig Heils must make sure things exist in a vacuum devoid of materialism
If the best Three Aryans can do is to point out a handful of officials then it seems to be the exception that proves the
rulenorm under discussionThree Pogroms
that's not what "exception proves a rule" means. that's for when you can infer a rule from an exception and dannn's tweets don't really tell us anything about anything else
My bad, what would you call it?
Edit: I edited my comment, what do you think? I actually started to second guess my word choice right after I posted so I'm curious what you would write instead.
uh i dunno, i guess i'd say that only pointing out one guy undermines the argument he's trying to make (about leadership?) but then he also claims:
which is potentially a better argument but is, for me, contextless because i've never heard of Foitzek and I don't know what "members" means here or if being a member of the SED and of the nazi party means the same thing, if you're still a former nazi if you quit after the night of long knives, what a civil servant is etc.
i don't have the full comments open but somebody in here made a point about von braun being in charge of shit and the soviet program being run by a soviet and that's a great point. I probably care less about the kind of former nazi who is a county clerk than i do about the kind of former nazi who is founding NATO.
SED literally includes the NDPD I mentioned in my comment, a party that was explicitly former wehrmacht with the purpose of containing them. As always Three Seig Heils must make sure things exist in a vacuum devoid of materialism
deleted by creator
deleted by creator