Hypocrisy is the only word I can think of after reading the news of Günter Grass's infamous past. He is so outspoken on anti-war topic but he was a member of Nazi even though he claimed he had not shot anyone.
After having won so many international commendations and hearts, especially the Germans for such a long time, his concealment is hard to be forgiven. Why did he cover it up for so long?
Would the Nobel Prize organizers do something about it?
First he was 17! Second he crew up in a Nazi regime! Third he proved after the war that he in the end became a left wing person and a very prominent peace activist.
So I think no one who was born after the war and in a peaceful system have the right to condemn him. I always wonder how easy people which have never been in such a sitution believe in their own moral superiority.
He said he was and is ashamed for it and had to deal with his past. Maybe he was afraid of saying something about his past. And how right he was about this point. I would not wonder if now starts a "witch hunt".
I am sure that he would not have gotten the Nobel Prize, if the Nobel comittee would have known about his Waffen-SS-past. But in my opionen this fact does not question his merits as a important writer, but maybe the Nobel Price comitee itself.
Many people think it was a (big) mistake, not to tell it much ealier and some are also disappointed. On the othe hand maybe that would have ruined his life. The bad about Grass in this case is only one fact; Did he had the right to condemn Germanys Nazi past the way he did it very often.
People and especialy young people can change! The truth is not that simple! Generalisations are stupid! That's what we can learn about this case.
The core of condemnation is about his six decade long cocealment and him being an ouspoken PC moralist of post war Germany. The guy called for resignation of Kurt Georg Kiesinger because he was a Nazi.
It's simple. The guy is a hypocrite.
Towards the end of the war, the Waffen SS drafted many soldiers - many of whom were not enthusiastic Nazis or Hitler-worshippers.
If you do a little research, you'll see that it was easier to get into the Waffen SS at a young age late in the war than it was getting into the regular German Army. For Christ sake, people said the current Pope was a Nazi just because he was in the Hitler Youth (which by the way was OBLIGATORY for all German boys aged something) and later a Luftwaffe Flakhelper.
I agree that Grass coming out with this now is a little questionable, but at least he admitted it. Also, I am surprised no one has found this out before. I mean how hard can a background-check be?
-CW
Forgive and forget, I guess? He tried to make up for it by doing what he did before the confession. He could have just carried the secret to his grave, if he wanted to, but he didn't. Everyone makes mistake....
shareWhat part of "the core of controversy being the concealment" didn't you understand. It's almost insulting that you presume I don't know things you have stated above. If you do a little research with Google News, you find that almost none of news outlets condem him for serving in Waffen SS. It's only his apologists who pretend that people are just condeming him for being a Waffen SS.
Your apologist assesement of Grass's late revelation being "a little questionable" is laughable. He wan't just a writer of fiction. The guy was the chief moraliser of post Nazi Germany, wagging fingre at German for not being honest about their past. If this isn't a hypocracy, I don't know what is.
As of "how hard can a background-check be?", it is very difficult if you don't know where to look. Archive of war period is often awfully incomplet so it is very easy to conclude that missing record was destroyed or lost. But I think most simply took Grass's (bogus) words about what he did in WWII for granted. Afterall, it's honest-about-the-Nazi-past Gunter Grass telling you what he did during WWII. I'm quite sure few journalists in Germany are kicking themselves for not digging deeper.
Grass has already redeemed himself by writing this book. There are a lot of people that were a part of Hitlerjunge, that doesn't make them nazis. Some of them just had no choice. Grass was one of them.
I agree with fw-bz-he changed, whatever his initial intentions were, he condemned nazi regime.
See Vapour's comment.
How does becoming a left-wing person prove anything? The communists killed far more people (and innocents) than the Nazis ever did. And they were enslaving half the world at the time Grass became "left-wing." Wanting to appease such bastards ("peace activist) is no more admirable than wanting to appease the Nazis like Chamberlain did.
~~~~~ The communists killed far more people (and innocents) than the Nazis ever did.~~~~~
Both were C20th Johnny-come-latelys, compared to the bourgeois liberals.
Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.
Grass has ALWAYS said that he supported Hitler as a teenager, you ignorant *beep* The fact that he was drafted into the Waffen-SS instead of the Wehrmacht in the closing months of the war is a difference of degree and not of kind from what he's always said all along. It tells us nothing of moral consequence that we didn't know already. The current uproar about this is completely manufactured.
shareI find this view on one of the best fictional authors of our time completely irrational and frankly disgustingly ignorant.
Someone's past beliefs are not a dictat of personality nor credibility and they certainly shouldn't do so when someone has been such an avid activist and educator in truly left-wing ideology. If anything Grass' experience under the Nazi regime makes his work more realistic and effective, as he can speak from the perspective of someone who was brainwashed by Hitlers mentality (along with a VAST number of Germans who simply believed they were making their country a better place, unaware of the hideous brutality.) Therefore I must say the last thing Gunter Grass is, is a 'hypocrite', but someone who can speak, write and EMPATHISE about Nazi Germany and in all its atrocity with true conviction and experience.
Small mindedness and idocrasy as such disgusts me, do some research before you start throwing around fallacies and labels.
I mean, Tony Blair used to call himself a socialist.
If find the above view on one of the best know moraliser of our time completely irrational and frankly disgustingly ignorant.
Someone's past beief are a dictat of credibility and they certainly should so so when someone has been such an avid moraliser for the past 60 years. Grass's "concealed" experience under the Nazi regime makes his writing more hypocraite, as he speak righous from the perspective of someone who himself couldn't speak out honestly about his past but, nonetheless, shamelessly condemed others for not doing so. Therefore, I must say that the last thing Gunter Grass is, is being 'sincere". Grass is someone who cannot speak, write and EMPATHISE about how each German should own up to their war time past with true conviction and experience, given that he didn't do what he preached.
Spindoctoring and idocrasy as this disgusts me. Stop pretending that Grass is condemed for being a Waffen SS. He is condemed for not being honest about his past for past 60 years while basking in praise for being the conciense of post Nazi Germany. Do some research before you start throwing around fallacies.
I almost find your grammar even more insulting than the post itself.
He is a moraliser because he knows what he is talking about, first hand - which is something I am quite sure you cannot say yourself. Why you are more qualified to get up on some kind of moral highground is totally beyond me because clearly you have the mental age of an eight year old. Editing my post to make yourself look intelligent really doesn't work either; it just looks lazy.
I don't believe I've seen documentation expressing his disdain towards people not 'speaking out' about their past - quite the contrary, if you have read any of his literature or essays you will see that his sympathy is with the German people who experienced Hitler's atrocities, especially those involved. What he is 'preaching' condemns the ideology behind the regime and tries to show the rest of the world the German people's ongoing plight. Although from the way that post was written, I wouldn't expect you to understand the true message behind his work. This exact attitude is the one Grass has worked for 60 years to quash.
No matter, my belief is that his involvement with the Waffen ss is totally irrelevant to the work he has done since - whether it was 'concealed' or not. It does not discredit all he has done in the slightest and it is my belief that anyone who thinks it should must be very narrow minded.
I suggest you stop looking on 'google news' for all your answers and go ahead and read 'Crabwalk' or 'Dog Years' and come back with an informed opinion on what this brilliant author has been trying to show people instead of your Daily Mail-esque prejudice.
"I don't believe I've seen documentation expressing his disdain towards people not 'speaking out' about their past"
Nice spin, (or impressive display of self deception). Didn't he repeatedly criticise German, "in general", for wishing to forget. Didn't he tell German to be honest and sincere about what they did during the war. So he didn't make his criticism personal. Should we applauld him for not being totally shameless? Deconstructing his writing would be a great fun now.
Grass wrote so eloquently about the evil of hypocracy and the moral need for German to be honest and sincere about its Nazi past. That is precisely the reason why he is so criticised. His credibility rested on the (bogus) assumption that he is honest about his nazi past. I didn't put myself on moral highground. It is GG who has been put himself on the moral lowground for all these time.
Again, I must reiterate how much you seem to have missed the point behind the work of Gunter Grass.
His writing encourages Germany to ACCEPT their past, and move on. His criticism is, and always has been about the guilt Germans feel to this day about what happened 67 years ago and the condemnation of an entire nation by the rest of the world because of it.
His credibility rests on the quality of his work, which is outstanding. A stint in a regime which, I may add, he actually did nothing to conceal does not somehow negate everything he has done for the people of Germany, nor for leftism as a whole. If you think it should I do sincerely think you could gain something from actually reading his work, and understanding what he is trying to say.
People should move forward, and learn all they can along the way, not dwell on past mistakes and cling to the negative. Gunter Grass is a great writer, and a person who has raised an immesurable amount of awareness for his 'cause'. I find it very sad that people would rather hate him for an irrelevant occurance than take joy in the knowledge that could be gathered from him.
1. Germans should feel guilt for their history. 90% of the Germany voters elected Hitler, and put him in power. He had the strong support of most Germans throughout his rule.
2. His work sucks.
3. He apparently did try to conceal his past.
4. Again, being a left-wing nut is no better than being a right-wing nut. It's actually worse, in that the left has slaughtered far more innocents in the last century than the Nazis did. (Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler.)
Study some history.
Re: "Again, being a left-wing nut is no better than being a right-wing nut."
I agree with this statement. Just as many former straight edge people get heavily into hard drugs, or how several alcoholics and addicts become Born-Again Christians and AA zealots, extremism in anything should be viewed with skepticism.
But regarding Stalin killing more Russians than Hitler, along with your first (#1.) point that Germans should feel guilty about their history, I have to totally disagree. If this were so, then are you suggesting that all Russians should feel guilty for Stalin's genocides? We cannot heal or move forward as a global community if we don't allow forgiveness and reinforce the guilt that many Germans have felt since the aftermath of WWII.
90% of the Germany voters elected Hitler, and put him in power.
4. Again, being a left-wing nut is no better than being a right-wing nut. It's actually worse, in that the left has slaughtered far more innocents in the last century than the Nazis did. (Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler.)
You're missing the point of Grass's work and basically discrediting much of the themes of the New German Cinema movement, which Volker Schlöndorff--along with R.W. Fassbinder, Wim Wenders, and Herzog--was a part of. They were wanting Germans to examine and ultimately accept their past. This does not mean that they should be made to feel even more ashamed and guilty, to be punished; rather, it's an effort to heal the wounds inflicted by Germany's infamous Nazi past. It seems as if you'd like to see Grass punished for his past and stripped of his accolades, but would that really solve anything? Would that really make you feel any better?
PS - Once again, it must be said that your grammar is horrible. "Didn't he tell German to be honest and sincere about what they did during the war." Huh?? Who's German? Isn't this sentence suppose to be a question? If so, then why does it not end with a question mark?
@ The Vapour
If humans were condemned for their past beliefs, then you must not believe that people can change. Isn't that the point of educating the ignorant, to instigate change? Your moral superiority is as laughable as your poor grammar.
Speaking of irony you have two split infinitives, yet are carping on the grammar usage of others?
The point is GG is in fact a flaming hypocrite. And he is not redeemed by his history -- he went from one for of worship of the state to another.
Speaking of irony you have two split infinitives, yet are carping on the grammar usage of others?
The point is GG is in fact a flaming hypocrite. And he is not redeemed by his history -- he went from one for of worship of the state to another.
Good post and responses here. I'm on the fence on this one being in the field of the arts & culture. Mr Grass' impact to the world literary stage was huge. On one hand I've been a big fan of his work on an academic and artistic level just like I can also appreciate the artistry of Leni Riefenstahl's vision but I must admit that these achievements don't exist and thrive in a social vacuum as their legacies may wish they would. One thing in favor of Germany's present is that time has a way of relaxing the pall of past attitudes and perception as their current good citizenry deserve (BTW, we have a governor here in Calif. who's a former movie star from Austria who has to deal with the same critiques). While I'm not qualified to pass judgement specifically on Mr. Grass' politics now or in the past, the evidence that one may extrapolate from his public interviews especially if he's declared a higher moral ground as a celebrity is fair game to be examined as far as I'm concerned. Celebrities still have to answer to the court of public opinion even if exonerated on all other levels.
Those affected by WWII who passionately remember these issues first-hand have or are passing away and we their descendents generally have a tendency towards amnesia about dark unpleasant past subjects that don't directly apply to our own milieu because we are now one to two generations removed from those times. Do the majority of this generation still realize the gravity of what happened over 50 years ago in the context of today? This is the issue and this post reminds us of how charged an issue it can still be. One thing's for sure, I appreciate Die Blechtrommel just the same if Mr Grass wrote it from behind bars or from his bucolic countryside home. I can easily cut the man some slack for his contributions in my context but the next person in theirs has within their perogative and right not to.
...great movie BTW.
Even though I don´t like Grass' work, I have to defend him. First, he was only 17, when he went to the SS and was strong affected by Nazi propaganda.
Second, he was "only" in the Waffen-SS and not a guard in a concentration camp or something.
... that Grass used his personal past for PR?????
Grass is only a joke, he wrote 1 (sic!) good book ("Danziger Trilogie" including "Die Blechtrommel"), the rest is *beep* He is no Nazi, have never been left or something else.
His problem is: nobody is longer interested in his kind of writing and his new book would have been forgotten after a very short time. So he needed PR: and what is better (esp. in the VSA) to stand up and say: "I was in the Waffen SS". Everybody at those days was forced to be in a Nazi-organization: SS, BDM, HJ etc.
Let the dead people being dead. It would be the best for Grass, too.
Carpe diem? ... CARPE JUGULUM!share
If everybody at those days was forced to be in a Nazi-organisation that can not be PR.
Get over it. It's not like Gunther Grass is a politician or world leader with a substantial amount of power; he's only a writer. Iggy Pop used to tell all the women in his audiences to get down on their knees and suck his ass, but now there are Iggy Pop action figures; the Stooges are praised as Rock n Roll legends when they were junked-out losers who could barely find a pot to piss in during the early 70s; Iggy has collaborated with Peaches--a well-known (Post) Feminist whose fans would be appaled by his past exploits. Guess what? People can change... and that's a very good thing in most cases.
shareYou do know in Germany at the time that if you were male and old enough to serve, you served right? If you didn't you were shot dead.
"We all go a little mad sometimes." - Norman Bates