From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: Germany Abortion Law and (was: Observations)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:34:24 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:

>In talk.abortion, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <24588@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) wri
>>tes:
>>>In talk.abortion, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>I have not read the text, only others interpretation of it, and the
>brou-ha-ha that has followed it. Whatever else it says, it basically
>allows a woman access to abortion, should she so desire. The religiously
>mired folk, who, if I happen to remember correctly were primarily from
>the southern Bavaria region, are the same folk who were the primary
>section of that favorite group the SS. I don't know about you, but anything
>that curtailed their influence, I would be in favor of.

This is extraordinarily misleading.  Bavaria was the stronghold of opposition
to Hitler's power during the Nazi years (see "The Limits of Hitler's Power"
and "The Nazi Voter", the latter is by Thomas Childers, the author of the
former I cannot remember at the moment).  Nazi support was drawn mostly
from medium-sized towns - large cities drew less support, and the BAvarian
village was renowned for its capability to defy Nazi edicts.  If you want
to understand why, read the two books above.  Simply put, Bavarians 
generally hated the Communists worse than they did the National Socialists.
The Nazis only had political clout as long as communist rule appeared to
threaten southern German communities.  When that threat was eliminated, 
the Nazi party found themselves just as unwelcome as the Communist before
them.

>>In any case, this law is still the subject of intense debate,
>>and it is by no means beyond repeal.  Kinder-Kirche-Kuche
>>(children-church-kitchen, for women) still runs strong, along with a
>>pervasive xenophobia.  Have you seen any decisions handed down

>This goes hand in hand with the previously mentioned ideals and beliefs
>of that of so Catholic group. Ever wonder why the *only* organization
>not to be pillaged in WWII was the Catholic Church? I say separation
>of church and state is a definite ideal, and should be enforced to such
>an extent that someone who is ruled only by his religion be barred from
>any political office. (asbestos lined suit on:)

Again, this is an extraordinarily misleading statement.  The Catholic
Church was not as severely hurt by Nazi rule largely because it's 
"capitol" was not in Germany.  Protestant ministers and their flocks
were more likely to support Nazi rule, and be spared retribution, than
were Catholic priests and their congregations.  Notable exceptions to 
both general rules of thumb can be found, of course, but the statistics
on this are quite clear, as Childers and dozens before him have 
demonstrated.  The Italians tended to be much more lenient to all forms
of organized religion, including Jews, than were the Germans.  Since
Italy is a predominantly Catholic country (as opposed to the Protestantism
of the Germans) one can easily argue that it was the civilizing influence
of Catholicism in Italy which prevented excesses similar to those of the
Germans.  Your blanket statements overlook a wealth of caveats.

>>Germany also provides extensive, constitutionally-guaranteed support
>>for mothers (can you say, "bounty"?), as well as extremely female-oriented
>>custody laws, to discourage abortions and encourage ("Aryan") population

>Some of this I think is actually good, as I don't believe a mother should
>be forced into poverty because she had a child. ANother thing you don't
>mention is that Germany has a zero to negative growth rate, and because
>all economists appear to be short-sighted morons who believe in infinite
>growth, this worries governments who base their economic policies on
>this premise. They really should look into maintaining a zero-growth
>population and related economy. As for the Aryan stuff, that both worries
>me and appears to be justified, esp. in light of this weekend's violence.

And merely goes to show the hype to which media is prone.  Analysis of the
historical context in which Nazi Germany moved shows that the Germans of
the early 20th century were not much different than their neighbors.
France was easily as xenophobic, Poland was arguably more dictatorial.
Hitler considered an alliance with Poland, until Stalin agreed to join up.
There were French volunteer divisions of SS.  That was 50 years ago.

Today, France is at least as xenophobic as Germany (witness the popularity
of Le Pen and his ilk) and Poland and the CIS are having similar problems.
The demonstrations taking place in Germany can be matched one for one with
similar demonstrations in France - the simple fact is, this sort of demo
sells better on TV when it comes from a country with Germany's history than
it does when it comes from the land of the French revolution (which was the
most bloody revolution of the 18th century, and arguably the most intolerant
until the rise of Hitler).  Robespierre has been described as Hitler's 
pre-cursor.  We just don't tend to think of Rousseau as the moral equivalent
of, say, Nietzsche but Jean Jacques certainly was close, and Hitler did
think of himself as the embodiment of the Rousseavian ideal of leadership.

>Ron

Steve Kellmeyer