German general sacked after praising anti-semite speech

[Hitro]

Take this as a little addition to the recurring "Europe is anti-semite" issue.

This article from CNN gives a summary of what happened:

BERLIN, Germany (AP) -- Defense Minister Peter Struck on Tuesday dismissed a German army general for praising a speech by a conservative lawmaker accused of anti-Semitism for comparing the actions of Jews in the Russian revolution with those of the Nazis.

Brigadier General Reinhard Guenzel, the commander of Germany's special forces, was fired over a letter he wrote to politician Martin Hohmann, praising his "courage" for a speech that drew criticism from across the political spectrum and legal action from Jewish leaders.

"I have decided to relieve him of his command and to dismiss him. With that, the case is closed for me," Struck said, emphasizing that he considered the general's remarks an "isolated case" not representative of the German military.

Prosecutors in the central city of Fulda on Monday opened an investigation of Hohmann on charges of incitement, slander and disparaging the dead for his comments speech on October 3 marking German Unity Day.

Hohmann argued that Germans still labor under the burden of Nazi crimes, but other nations with bloody pasts cast themselves as "innocent lambs." He cited the French revolution and the prominent role of Jews in the 1917 communist revolution in Russia.

"With a certain justification, one could ask in view of the millions killed in the first phase of the revolution about the 'guilt' of the Jews," Hohmann said.

He said "it would follow the same logic with which the Germans are described as a guilty people." He concluded that the point was not to blame the Germans for Nazi crimes or Jews for those of the Bolsheviks, but rather "the godless with their godless ideologies."

Hohmann, 55, on Saturday apologized for his comments under pressure from colleagues in the main opposition Christian Democratic Union party.

But in a letter from Guenzel that Hohmann read to ZDF television magazine program "Frontal21" -- which producers said they did not see -- the general praised the speech.

"It was an excellent speech, of a courage truth and clarity which one seldom hears or reads in our country" Guenzel reportedly wrote.

The KSK special forces, an elite unit touted by German leaders for its professionalism, have seen duty recently in Afghanistan as part of Germany's contribution to the U.S.-led war on terrorism after the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Would a country in anti-semite Europe sack the leader of its special forces only hours after getting notice of him praising such a speech?
Hardly, I think.

And from a different angle, does this go to far? Is it a violation of free speech and freedom of opinion?

 

[Ozz]

No such thing as "Free Speech" you got to pay for voicing your
opinion. (Unless your "opinion" is the offically sanctioned state
opionion that is)

 

[Bozo Erectus]

You'd think such a high ranking guy would have enough sense to know that writing a letter like that would mean career suicide. Not just the German army either. An American general that made comments like that would be in deep doodoo here too. I dont think what he said is particularly offensive, but saying it while wearing a German Army uniform is really stupid.

 

[Hitro]

Well he wrote it in a private letter and was "unlucky" that Homann, the member of parliament having made the speech, published it.

 

[Speedo]

Shoulda known that a letter like that in the hands of a politician would only remain private for about 30 seconds.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Hitro
And from a different angle, does this go to far? Is it a violation of free speech and freedom of opinion?

Ofcource it's a violation of freedom of speech. And a necessary one as well. You only deserve your rights as long as they don't physically hurt others, and acceptance of racism by such people is likely to cause acts of racist violence.
Regardless of that, most countries I know will want military leaders, especially such high ranking ones, to be rational people, and not racists.

 

[Akbar]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead
An American general that made comments like that would be in deep doodoo here too.

Yes, exactly like Lt.Gen.William Bokyn. Oh, wait.....

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Oh wait indeed, according to google Bokyn doesnt exist. Who is he and what crazy comments did he make?

 

[Grille]

That thing is a very strange scandal:

That totally dumb Hohmann guy seems to have lost his last brain cell before making such a wrong (wrong by ALL means) speech. He was an unknown member of parliament, and that speech was (strangely) already well known for a few days to a bunch of important politicians as well as to the general secretary of Hohmann's political party. Obviously, the secretary did not draw the consequences and excluded him from the political party in time (H. could not lose his seat in parliament thereby, of course). Then the story made it into the media and all of a sudden, the *official* rantings started, public callings to expel Hohmann from his party have been made. Now an army general (Guenzel) "feels pity" about Hohmann, but only mentioned that in a private (!) letter - what does Hohmann do? He published the content of the letter... well, if those freaks always denigrate themselves I can live with that.

Surely general Guenzel must get the sack. It was just proven that he lacks of any quality an army general must have - whether his intention was to make his opinion go into public or not. In a way, he is representing Germany: He's commanding an elite soldier squad which is/will be used for abroad operations and you all might know well that sending military to foreign countries is a sensible issue here. But we do not want to be represented by an idiot! A representator should should not annoy anyone IMHO.

Maybe one can keep the weirdest ideas in one's own head, but if you share these, you must be aware that they could be published with all accordant consequences.

 

[funxus]

You shouldn't be allowed to say something that contradicts with the policy of the organization you're representing. A company can't keep people who discredits the company while representing it, and a right-wing party can't keep people with left-wing opinions.

Here, our prime minister sacked members of the government for openly discrediting EMU the month before the poll. He didn't do it very well though, because most people took it as if he was gagging the opposition. Anyone can understand that an organization can't have people who actively work against the organization from within...

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

The problem with the officer's letter and Hohmann's speech is that I don't think the Jews acting as commisars or later as officers in the NKVD thought of themselves as primarily Jews, but rather Communist citizens of the USSR, likewise the Jews who were active in the German Communist Party in the interwar years saw themselves as members of an internationally based community and not neccesarily Jews. And even if there were a large number of Jews involved in communist parties, the reason behind this was perhaps that they were shunned by or denied acces to the bourguis class. Then it would make sense that they identify themselves with the workers in creating a classless society with equal rights and status.

 

[thestonesfan]

I'm not sure who exactly would be offended by this, but it certainly is extremely ill-advised for a German General to say.

 

[Richard III]

Once again, people are confusing "freedom of speech" with "freedom from consequences of speech."

He said what he said; no one censored his letter. In this case, while it was a private letter, the government took the view that having those views, private or otherwise, were not consistent with the expectations of the military, in much the same way being a Nazi bigot (privately!) was in recent scandals not considered consistent with being a Canadian soldier.

That said, I believe folks should be free to say what they want - and the listeners equally free to ostracize, criticise or otherwise disassociate themselves from those who say what they've said. Doing the latter is a fair reaction to the former, not a limit upon it.

In particular, my views on the issue of officers in uniform playing politics are expressed well enough elsewhere.

R.III

 

[Gothmog]

Boykin was the fool who was going around to Churches saying that GWB Jr. was appointed by God to lead us into a holy war against Islam. What a jerk, he should be removed from his position IMO.

 

[thestonesfan]

Originally posted by Gothmog
Boykin was the fool who was going around to Churches saying that GWB Jr. was appointed by God to lead us into a holy war against Islam. What a jerk, he should be removed from his position IMO.

Yes, I agree. That kind of thing has no place in such weighty matters.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by Richard III
In particular, my views on the issue of officers in uniform playing politics are expressed well enough elsewhere.

Ah. So you are saying that an Israeli general who confides with his fellow citizens and claims that Israeli tactics of massacre and assasination against the Palestinian rebellion is counterproductive is compareable to a German officer claiming that Jews were as much responsible for atrocities done by the Communists towards class enemies as Nazis were responible for what the Germans did against the Jews.

I always thought that one had to differentiate between what the Chilian Navy officers did and said, and what the henchmen of Pinochet did and said. According to you no officer should have publicy disproved of Pinochet's actions. Also was it wrong of Rommel to be disloyal towards Hitler?

In my oppinion you cannot say that officers should be amoral beings excluded from any political process. They sometimes have to act human, or inhuman for that matter depending on your viewpoint.

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Originally posted by funxus
A company can't keep people who discredits the company while representing it...

Yes you can. Accountants! Not that anyone really take them seriously or anything, but nevertheless.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor


Ah. So you are saying that an Israeli general who confides with his fellow citizens and claims that Israeli tactics of massacre and assasination against the Palestinian rebellion is counterproductive is compareable to a German officer claiming that Jews were as much responsible for atrocities done by the Communists towards class enemies as Nazis were responible for what the Germans did against the Jews.

I always thought that one had to differentiate between what the Chilian Navy officers did and said, and what the henchmen of Pinochet did and said. According to you no officer should have publicy disproved of Pinochet's actions. Also was it wrong of Rommel to be disloyal towards Hitler?

In my oppinion you cannot say that officers should be amoral beings excluded from any political process. They sometimes have to act human, or inhuman for that matter depending on your viewpoint.

You have demonstrated once again why I'm increasingly convinced that you should be excluded from any political process.

For the fiftieth time (e.g. read the frickin' thread before you judge), I distinguish between the statements and the role in which the officer states them; they are different issues. The quality of either the Israeli general's (sound) remarks, or the German general's (sick) remarks is irrelevant if either is abusing the authority given by the state and citizenry to command a standing army. As I'd argued earlier, it's like praising judicial activism just because you like the decisions made by the activists - and forgetting that the judges could just as easily use such a power to subvert democracy by swinging the other way.

And before you start coughing up praise for the plotters in the Reichswehr, remember that if the Reichswehr had stayed as aloof from politics as it pretended it did, we wouldn't have had as catastrophic a nazi problem in the first place.

The reason I added that final distinction to my earlier post was to take a final shot at the view that the General was merely "exercising his right to express his opinion," and this general's remarks demonstrate perfectly why contempt for that notion should be equally applied, for who is to judge when he is offensive or not? His particular opinion is particularly odious, and given my praise for the Israeli general's content, if not his manner of delivery, I'd think you'd give me credit for that.

R.III

And if I can add...

I always thought that one had to differentiate between what the Chilian Navy officers did and said, and what the henchmen of Pinochet did and said. According to you no officer should have publicy disproved of Pinochet's actions. Also was it wrong of Rommel to be disloyal towards Hitler?

In my oppinion you cannot say that officers should be amoral beings excluded from any political process. They sometimes have to act human, or inhuman for that matter depending on your viewpoint.

1. The Chilean Army did what it did because their country had built up a culture of which you clearly approve - e.g. one in which military officers are deemed capable of understanding the complexities of civilian politics by virtue of superior firepower. YOUR policies lead to fascism. It doesn't matter whether one of out every ten military regimes might happen to govern better than a civilian regime; what matters is, once the military is given the impression that it has ANY say over civilian rule, then it will always be tempted to abuse that power. And the more the military speaks, the more normal it is, and therefore, the more normal it becomes for civilians to look to them for solutions.

2. For the hundredth time also, if there is an opinion to be expressed, the officer can, should and must resign. Iamgine which is a more powerful statement, for your purposes: 100 army officers get up and leave the army to speak out against injustice, or 100 army officers sign a letter saying they've got better ideas than the government but are agreeing to continue to work under military law, get military paycheques and obey orders all the same for the moment?

 

[SanPellegrino]

I read also that the speech was known to CDU officials before, I always thought they are totally stupid but that exceeds even my expectations.

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
The problem with the officer's letter and Hohmann's speech is that I don't think the Jews acting as commisars or later as officers in the NKVD thought of themselves as primarily Jews, but rather Communist citizens of the USSR, likewise the Jews who were active in the German Communist Party in the interwar years saw themselves as members of an internationally based community and not neccesarily Jews

true, I guess hear a remnant of the old "communist/capitalist Jewish Conspiracy" here, now I know how the CDU backbenchers think...

 

[BorgeoisBuffoon]

I agree it's a REALLY stupid thing, but I do think they went a BIT too far-

-only a bit, though. He deserved a large form of punishment, but shouldn't have lost his job. I'm think he was wrong to think that crud, but maybe some large demotion or such would have been better. After all, he'd probably become a pariah anyway, which would be just as harsh.

Um...I dunno what else to say, other than I agree with G-Man and Dumb Pothead. ^^;