Duden dictionary doesn't support your assertion, however. The closest it comes to "to draw" is to "to form" or "to model".
"In künstleris… morecher Weise plastisch gestalten; modellieren"
A little nitpick, but the noun is "Bild" (no "e"). Even though it does mean "image", a similar verb may have a similar meaning only on some semantical level and not directly. So, perhaps it is better to use "malen" in this case.
"Zeichnen" is more akin to "to draft", "to trace", "to sketch", often referring to a pencil-drawn schematics, for example. It is not used when referring to picture drawing. At the very least I haven't encountered it being used in such context and according to what I've heard during the classes, it's not supposed to be used in such contexts.
"Zeichnen" is more akin to "to draft", "to trace", "to sketch", often referring to a pencil-drawn schematics, for example. It is not used w… morehen referring to picture drawing. At the very least I haven't encountered it being used in such context and according to what I've heard during the classes, it's not supposed to be used in such contexts.
In one context, yes. In addition, other contexts can be translated as "to depict". In any case, I cannot seem to find the actual verb for drawing a picture.
To hell with this, I will just edit it into English. I think that I have derailed thos thread enough.
In one context, yes. In addition, other contexts can be translated as "to depict". In any case, I cannot seem to find the actual verb for dr… moreawing a picture.
To hell with this, I will just edit it into English. I think that I have derailed thos thread enough.
I found it interesting. Just prepare yourself if you do read it; it warps so many truths and completely ignores others, some omissions of which can fly over your head. You can find an accurately translated and annotated text of it here.
So, even if it wasn't 'direct'....it's still okay to work in the Aushcwitz concentration camp of which over a million were killed. Oops, sorry, he was just 'working' there, he never actually pulled a trigger, or poisoned someone etc. ya know, just joined the SS, a friendly paramedic in a slaughterhouse.
Just one tiny problem
Direct accesory,
This would imply, as per the use of direct, that he was directly involved, which he was not. Everything else is a legitimate arguement.
SS camp medics sometimes poured Zyklon B into the gas chambers
A majority of them did. However, every source I have read states clearly that he was not directly involved in the killings, so Zafke cannot be counted among that majority.
You'd have to put every soldier ever to be stationed at the front of any war (in living memory of course) on trial for that to be a fair process. I'm not justifying Germany's war crimes. They were absolutely inhumane and cruel and can never be excused. But, like with every army, there were Germans at the front that did not want to be there and did not participate in the cruelties, even if it might be less than in other armies because most of them were blinded idealists. And in every army, there are people that will commit crimes in war. If every German soldiers should be put on trial, so should every Soviet Soldiers, every Chinese soldier that fought alongside Mao. You really can't generalise something like this.
But as far as the 'masterminds' behind the KZs are concerned, they don't even deserve a trial in my opinion, and I'm convinced that this trial is just a formality. EDIT: I didn't read correctly and thought he was directly involved. If he was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time, then it's the same case as with the soldiers really.
I had to look it up aswell, but there really is no source of Zafke participating in the killings directly. And remember that back then, it was completely normal to record all of this. Most Nazis weren't ashamed of doing what they did in the KZs. 'Killing duty' would have been recorded somewhere. And Zafke's name isn't on any lists, so he didn't participate.
He was a member of the SS and a concentration camp guard. That's reason enough for me for him to have been removed from existence.
The en… moretire lot of them should have been dumped in mass graves at war's end, after being gassed in the same chambers they used for the Jews.
You'd have to put every soldier ever to be stationed at the front of any war (in living memory of course) on trial for that to be a fair pro… morecess. I'm not justifying Germany's war crimes. They were absolutely inhumane and cruel and can never be excused. But, like with every army, there were Germans at the front that did not want to be there and did not participate in the cruelties, even if it might be less than in other armies because most of them were blinded idealists. And in every army, there are people that will commit crimes in war. If every German soldiers should be put on trial, so should every Soviet Soldiers, every Chinese soldier that fought alongside Mao. You really can't generalise something like this.
But as far as the 'masterminds' behind the KZs are concerned, they don't even deserve a trial in my opinion, and I'm convinced that this trial is just a formality. EDIT: I didn't read correctly and thought he was directly involved… [view original content]
So, even if it wasn't 'direct'....it's still okay to work in the Aushcwitz concentration camp of which over a million were killed. Oops, sor… morery, he was just 'working' there, he never actually pulled a trigger, or poisoned someone etc. ya know, just joined the SS, a friendly paramedic in a slaughterhouse.
It is the verb's main definition. You might be right about other contexts, though.
So, perhaps it is better to use "malen" in this case.
There is a verb for that.
?
What do you mean? What does fighting in war have to do with your reply? Sorry if i'm missing something. You were talking directly about the guy there was no mention of people going to fight in wars.
I am tired (11:29 pm here), so please excuse me if I worded it poorly. Let me rephrase that.
I never meant that him working there was alright. He had the knowledge of what was happening, and yet worked there, providing aid to those stationed that they might then continue their jobs of torturing and executing innocents. Yet, in spite of this, his status was just that he was tantemount to an onlooker in my eyes, since he virtually had little choice (being shot at by Russians or working well and truely behind the lines?) and lacked direct involvement in the killings, and this, in my eyes at least, makes him just as accountable as a mere soldier on the front. This is just how I see things. I know not many would agree with me, but that is just how I see it.
?
What do you mean? What does fighting in war have to do with your reply? Sorry if i'm missing something. You were talking directly about the guy there was no mention of people going to fight in wars.
He should stand a trial for just for wearing the uniform with SS on it. Those guys were not normal soldiers but a bunch of psychos and murderers so they should all be put before firing squad.
He was a member of the SS and a concentration camp guard. That's reason enough for me for him to have been removed from existence.
The en… moretire lot of them should have been dumped in mass graves at war's end, after being gassed in the same chambers they used for the Jews.
He could've left too but lets put you in his place. You see the terrible actions your comrades are doing and what your government is ordering, you don't like it so you don't participate but instead work as a medic/orderly. Can you leave? Yes but are you willing to? I doubt you would even if you say yes because saying you would act when you couldn't be further from the situation isn't really understanding the realities of the situation.
Do you know what Nazis did to traitors? Killed them and no better than the Jews. He couldn't act to save them. Would you be willing to leave the safe confines of this facility far into your own allied lines? To risk being sent to the western or eastern front getting your pick of being killed by the Americans and Britains or by the Russians. You wouldn't leave. In times like that you won't risk survival because you don't like what you're seeing. Plus, even if you did, you'd just be replaced and possibly by someone who'd actively participate.
Try to imagine the situation he was in before damning him.
He should stand trial, regardless of age. The fact is, this isn't just 'a soldier on the Front'. This is a man who was a direct accessory to… more the murder of 3,681 people. Three thousand, six hundred and eighty-one people. Read that again.
Why are people referencing soldiers? A soldier doesn't really have a choice, many were forced into the army, and even so in such a gigantic system, no one could question authority unless they wanted to be shot themselves. Many were brainwashed years earlier into believing they were fighting for the right cause (the views of Nazism did not just start in 1939), and of course, I won't deny there were some just generally bad soldiers too, with no conscience whatsoever.
Most probably didn't even realise how big the whole thing was getting, and those that did were part of the gigantic system i'm mentioning, look up 'collective guilt'. It's pretty interesting to be honest. Knowing that what you are doing is wrong, … [view original content]
Not everything is black and white. Simply belonging to the SS does not make you evil. Yes, the organisation was despicable and reprehensible, but to automatically assume that everyone belonging to them is evil and deserving of death is narrow-minded.
And before anyone accuses me for being a Nazi lover or being ignorant to their crimes, I do not in any way condone the acts of the Nazis, particularly that of the SS, and I am well and truely aware of their crimes. But, we are not talking about the SS as a group. We are talking about one man, an individual who did not directly participate in the killings (if you could call simply being at a place participating) and killed nary a soul in the entire war.
He should stand a trial for just for wearing the uniform with SS on it. Those guys were not normal soldiers but a bunch of psychos and murderers so they should all be put before firing squad.
Not everything is black and white. Simply belonging to the SS does not make you evil. Yes, the organisation was despicable and reprehensible… more, but to automatically assume that everyone belonging to them is evil and deserving of death is narrow-minded.
And before anyone accuses me for being a Nazi lover or being ignorant to their crimes, I do not in any way condone the acts of the Nazis, particularly that of the SS, and I am well and truely aware of their crimes. But, we are not talking about the SS as a group. We are talking about one man, an individual who did not directly participate in the killings (if you could call simply being at a place participating) and killed nary a soul in the entire war.
Lauri Törni was a part of the SS, and afterwards joined the Green Berets and fought in Vietnam. He was awarded a Distinguished Flying Cross, a Bronze Star, a Legion of Merit, and a Purple Heart. Here's a brief description of each from Wiki.
Distinguished Flying Cross: The Distinguished Flying Cross is a military decoration awarded to any officer or enlisted member of the United States Armed Forces who distinguishes himself or herself in support of operations by "heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight, subsequent to November 11, 1918."
Bronze Star Medal: The Bronze Star Medal, unofficially the Bronze Star, is a United States decoration awarded to members of the United States Armed Forces for either heroic achievement, heroic service, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service in a combat zone.
Legion of Merit: The Legion of Merit (LOM) is a military award of the United States Armed Forces that is given for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements. The decoration is issued to members of the seven uniformed services of the United States as well as to military and political figures of foreign governments.
Purple Heart: The Purple Heart is a United States military decoration awarded in the name of the President to those wounded or killed while serving, on or after April 5, 1917, with the U.S. military.
Just because some people in a group are bad does not mean that everyone in the group is bad. You can't look at everyone's reasons for joining as completely black and white. The Waffen SS was a military order held in high regard and known for being elite. Some people that joined probably did so because they wanted to serve, but with more distinction. Others, like Lauri Törni joined for the high quality training, and to continue the fight against the Soviet Union. And some, of course, joined because they wanted to do things on the darker side. Everyone had their reasons. I know it's very easy for you, 70 years later, to judge the actions of every man involved, but it does make you look shortsighted if nothing else.
No, it's not easy for me to judge, But we are talking about the SS here! They hunted innocent people like animals for fuck's sake! they carried the Swastika as their symbol, the symbol of disturbed ideals, a symbol created by a maniac who's ideas were known throughout the whole world. A SYMBOL OF PURE EVIL. do you really think that people that joined these squadrons joined it only because they wanted high quality training?
Just because some people in a group are bad does not mean that everyone in the group is bad. You can't look at everyone's reasons for joinin… moreg as completely black and white. The Waffen SS was a military order held in high regard and known for being elite. Some people that joined probably did so because they wanted to serve, but with more distinction. Others, like Lauri Törni joined for the high quality training, and to continue the fight against the Soviet Union. And some, of course, joined because they wanted to do things on the darker side. Everyone had their reasons. I know it's very easy for you, 70 years later, to judge the actions of every man involved, but it does make you look shortsighted if nothing else.
The swastika has existed for a long time as a symbol of peace for some religions. Do you do any research or do you come to these conclusions based on emotion alone?
No, it's not easy for me to judge, But we are talking about the SS here! They hunted innocent people like animals for fuck's sake! they carr… moreied the Swastika as their symbol, the symbol of disturbed ideals, a symbol created by a maniac who's ideas were known throughout the whole world. A SYMBOL OF PURE EVIL. do you really think that people that joined these squadrons joined it only because they wanted high quality training?
The swastika has existed for a long time as a symbol of peace for some religions. Do you do any research or do you come to these conclusions based on emotion alone?
No. You can only be tried once for one crime by German law. If you are officially released, they can't arrest you again even if they do find proof that you did it after all. If, however, new intel has surfaced that can be used to blame a different crime on him, that would be legal as far as I know.
Do you really think one sees the Gammadion Cross any other way nowaydays?
Pretty sure people of a religion aren't going to just throw away one of their symbols because people used it for bad.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
I think it's quite simple. You look at the obvious and make your choice based on that. Isn't of looking at the trial of this man from multiple perspectives you jump to the "He's a Nazi" and blame one man who didn't actively participate in the deaths for the deaths. What about calling people Nazis for sympathizing with a 95 year old man who didn't actively kill anyone? The other thing is looking at one use of a symbol and saying that's all their is despite the alternate history behind it.
Golden already got you for the swastika business, so I'll just address this:
do you really think that people that joined these squadrons joined it only because they wanted high quality training?
I don't think this, I know it to be a fact. Did you even read what I told you about Lauri Törni?
Edit: Rereading you post, I felt the need to clarify. I don't think they only joined for that reason, and I didn't even say that. I said that some people that joined would have joined for that reason, using Törni as the example.
No, it's not easy for me to judge, But we are talking about the SS here! They hunted innocent people like animals for fuck's sake! they carr… moreied the Swastika as their symbol, the symbol of disturbed ideals, a symbol created by a maniac who's ideas were known throughout the whole world. A SYMBOL OF PURE EVIL. do you really think that people that joined these squadrons joined it only because they wanted high quality training?
No. You can only be tried once for one crime by German law. If you are officially released, they can't arrest you again even if they do find… more proof that you did it after all. If, however, new intel has surfaced that can be used to blame a different crime on him, that would be legal as far as I know.
I don't really understand what's going on either. Ne bis in idem. Not twice in the same (case). It's one of the most fundamental laws and is actually equal to a Grundrecht, which means that everyone at all times, no matter the nature of their crime, has to be guaranteed to be tried under this law.
He has been found guilty in the past and served a sentence for his crimes. If no new information has surfaced that can be used to blame an entirely new crime on him, then this trial is against German law. The new jury's opinion of the severity of his punishment back then is of no importance whatsoever. However, I'm no expert on law and could be (and probably am) missing something important.
I don't really understand what's going on either. Ne bis in idem. Not twice in the same (case). It's one of the most fundamental laws and is… more actually equal to a Grundrecht, which means that everyone at all times, no matter the nature of their crime, has to be guaranteed to be tried under this law.
He has been found guilty in the past and served a sentence for his crimes. If no new information has surfaced that can be used to blame an entirely new crime on him, then this trial is against German law. The new jury's opinion of the severity of his punishment back then is of no importance whatsoever. However, I'm no expert on law and could be (and probably am) missing something important.
Comments
Alright, how is this?
Zeichne mich wie einen deiner Bayerische Übermenschen?
"Zeichnen" is more akin to "to draft", "to trace", "to sketch", often referring to a pencil-drawn schematics, for example. It is not used when referring to picture drawing. At the very least I haven't encountered it being used in such context and according to what I've heard during the classes, it's not supposed to be used in such contexts.
In that case, the closest I can recall to drawing in English would be beschrieben.
Beschriebe mich wie einen deiner bayerische Übermenschen.
Beschreiben is "to describe".
In one context, yes. In addition, other contexts can be translated as "to depict". In any case, I cannot seem to find the actual verb for drawing a picture.
To hell with this, I will just edit it into English. I think that I have derailed thos thread enough.
It is the verb's main definition. You might be right about other contexts, though.
There is a verb for that.
Thanks mate
So, even if it wasn't 'direct'....it's still okay to work in the Aushcwitz concentration camp of which over a million were killed. Oops, sorry, he was just 'working' there, he never actually pulled a trigger, or poisoned someone etc. ya know, just joined the SS, a friendly paramedic in a slaughterhouse.
He was a member of the SS and a concentration camp guard. That's reason enough for me for him to have been removed from existence.
The entire lot of them should have been dumped in mass graves at war's end, after being gassed in the same chambers they used for the Jews.
You'd have to put every soldier ever to be stationed at the front of any war (in living memory of course) on trial for that to be a fair process. I'm not justifying Germany's war crimes. They were absolutely inhumane and cruel and can never be excused. But, like with every army, there were Germans at the front that did not want to be there and did not participate in the cruelties, even if it might be less than in other armies because most of them were blinded idealists. And in every army, there are people that will commit crimes in war. If every German soldiers should be put on trial, so should every Soviet Soldiers, every Chinese soldier that fought alongside Mao. You really can't generalise something like this.
But as far as the 'masterminds' behind the KZs are concerned, they don't even deserve a trial in my opinion, and I'm convinced that this trial is just a formality. EDIT: I didn't read correctly and thought he was directly involved. If he was just being at the wrong place at the wrong time, then it's the same case as with the soldiers really.
I had to look it up aswell, but there really is no source of Zafke participating in the killings directly. And remember that back then, it was completely normal to record all of this. Most Nazis weren't ashamed of doing what they did in the KZs. 'Killing duty' would have been recorded somewhere. And Zafke's name isn't on any lists, so he didn't participate.
A famous man once said that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".
It's alright. For what it is worth, that was a good speech.
I never said that him working there was alright, just as a person going to fight in a war isn't alright.
Well, I learnt a couple of things. Thanks.
?
What do you mean? What does fighting in war have to do with your reply? Sorry if i'm missing something. You were talking directly about the guy there was no mention of people going to fight in wars.
I am tired (11:29 pm here), so please excuse me if I worded it poorly. Let me rephrase that.
I never meant that him working there was alright. He had the knowledge of what was happening, and yet worked there, providing aid to those stationed that they might then continue their jobs of torturing and executing innocents. Yet, in spite of this, his status was just that he was tantemount to an onlooker in my eyes, since he virtually had little choice (being shot at by Russians or working well and truely behind the lines?) and lacked direct involvement in the killings, and this, in my eyes at least, makes him just as accountable as a mere soldier on the front. This is just how I see things. I know not many would agree with me, but that is just how I see it.
He should stand a trial for just for wearing the uniform with SS on it. Those guys were not normal soldiers but a bunch of psychos and murderers so they should all be put before firing squad.
that would be poetic justice.
He could've left too but lets put you in his place. You see the terrible actions your comrades are doing and what your government is ordering, you don't like it so you don't participate but instead work as a medic/orderly. Can you leave? Yes but are you willing to? I doubt you would even if you say yes because saying you would act when you couldn't be further from the situation isn't really understanding the realities of the situation.
Do you know what Nazis did to traitors? Killed them and no better than the Jews. He couldn't act to save them. Would you be willing to leave the safe confines of this facility far into your own allied lines? To risk being sent to the western or eastern front getting your pick of being killed by the Americans and Britains or by the Russians. You wouldn't leave. In times like that you won't risk survival because you don't like what you're seeing. Plus, even if you did, you'd just be replaced and possibly by someone who'd actively participate.
Try to imagine the situation he was in before damning him.
Not everything is black and white. Simply belonging to the SS does not make you evil. Yes, the organisation was despicable and reprehensible, but to automatically assume that everyone belonging to them is evil and deserving of death is narrow-minded.
And before anyone accuses me for being a Nazi lover or being ignorant to their crimes, I do not in any way condone the acts of the Nazis, particularly that of the SS, and I am well and truely aware of their crimes. But, we are not talking about the SS as a group. We are talking about one man, an individual who did not directly participate in the killings (if you could call simply being at a place participating) and killed nary a soul in the entire war.
The organisation was evil. One man is not necessarily.
Lauri Törni was a part of the SS, and afterwards joined the Green Berets and fought in Vietnam. He was awarded a Distinguished Flying Cross, a Bronze Star, a Legion of Merit, and a Purple Heart. Here's a brief description of each from Wiki.
Distinguished Flying Cross: The Distinguished Flying Cross is a military decoration awarded to any officer or enlisted member of the United States Armed Forces who distinguishes himself or herself in support of operations by "heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight, subsequent to November 11, 1918."
Bronze Star Medal: The Bronze Star Medal, unofficially the Bronze Star, is a United States decoration awarded to members of the United States Armed Forces for either heroic achievement, heroic service, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service in a combat zone.
Legion of Merit: The Legion of Merit (LOM) is a military award of the United States Armed Forces that is given for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements. The decoration is issued to members of the seven uniformed services of the United States as well as to military and political figures of foreign governments.
Purple Heart: The Purple Heart is a United States military decoration awarded in the name of the President to those wounded or killed while serving, on or after April 5, 1917, with the U.S. military.
What makes an organization what it is? Exactly the people.
Just because some people in a group are bad does not mean that everyone in the group is bad. You can't look at everyone's reasons for joining as completely black and white. The Waffen SS was a military order held in high regard and known for being elite. Some people that joined probably did so because they wanted to serve, but with more distinction. Others, like Lauri Törni joined for the high quality training, and to continue the fight against the Soviet Union. And some, of course, joined because they wanted to do things on the darker side. Everyone had their reasons. I know it's very easy for you, 70 years later, to judge the actions of every man involved, but it does make you look shortsighted if nothing else.
So I've read that after the war he was tried and jailed for his involvement. Is it legal in Germany to serve multiple sentences for the same crime?
No, it's not easy for me to judge, But we are talking about the SS here! They hunted innocent people like animals for fuck's sake! they carried the Swastika as their symbol, the symbol of disturbed ideals, a symbol created by a maniac who's ideas were known throughout the whole world. A SYMBOL OF PURE EVIL. do you really think that people that joined these squadrons joined it only because they wanted high quality training?
The swastika has existed for a long time as a symbol of peace for some religions. Do you do any research or do you come to these conclusions based on emotion alone?
[removed]
Considering that he is in court again, i assume so.
No. You can only be tried once for one crime by German law. If you are officially released, they can't arrest you again even if they do find proof that you did it after all. If, however, new intel has surfaced that can be used to blame a different crime on him, that would be legal as far as I know.
Pretty sure people of a religion aren't going to just throw away one of their symbols because people used it for bad.
I think it's quite simple. You look at the obvious and make your choice based on that. Isn't of looking at the trial of this man from multiple perspectives you jump to the "He's a Nazi" and blame one man who didn't actively participate in the deaths for the deaths. What about calling people Nazis for sympathizing with a 95 year old man who didn't actively kill anyone? The other thing is looking at one use of a symbol and saying that's all their is despite the alternate history behind it.
You make arguments off of emotion, not facts.
Golden already got you for the swastika business, so I'll just address this:
I don't think this, I know it to be a fact. Did you even read what I told you about Lauri Törni?
Edit: Rereading you post, I felt the need to clarify. I don't think they only joined for that reason, and I didn't even say that. I said that some people that joined would have joined for that reason, using Törni as the example.
So since there's no new info found, and he already served his sentence, this is an illegal trial?
I don't really understand what's going on either. Ne bis in idem. Not twice in the same (case). It's one of the most fundamental laws and is actually equal to a Grundrecht, which means that everyone at all times, no matter the nature of their crime, has to be guaranteed to be tried under this law.
He has been found guilty in the past and served a sentence for his crimes. If no new information has surfaced that can be used to blame an entirely new crime on him, then this trial is against German law. The new jury's opinion of the severity of his punishment back then is of no importance whatsoever. However, I'm no expert on law and could be (and probably am) missing something important.
I'm sure some shyster lawyer will give us a couple hundred reasons why in this instance breaking the law is fine.
The first time was in Poland for simply being SS. This is different.
He was sentenced by a Polish court because of his SS membership to four years in jail, return to Germany after serving his time.
Okay then, thank you for clarifying.