Latest news with #NaziGermany
The National
5 days ago
- Politics
- The National
The complex legacy of Srebrenica and why today's wars never seem to end
Earlier this month, the world commemorated the 30th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. The tears of the relatives of victims will not dry for as long as they live. What do they signify? A fundamental insight is that the past is always with us, and we fail to understand details at our peril. In Srebrenica's case, 19th-century Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman imperialism triggered unrest among subject Balkan populations. This was a factor in the First World War and led to a Serbian kingdom that was re-named Yugoslavia in 1929 and conquered by Nazi Germany in 1941. The successor postwar communist republic fell behind the Iron Curtain in 1945 and fragmented into six states in 1991. Thus, the Balkan states – like others elsewhere – have long formed and re-formed. The lesson for our 80-year-old United Nations age is that the sanctity of national boundaries is a recent innovation against history's repeated wars over land that has strong symbolic value everywhere. Nowadays, with 150 territorial disputes frozen, smouldering or raging worldwide, is it futile to find definitive solutions? Perhaps diplomats would be more effective, not by solving such disputes, but by getting nations to disagree in peace. The contrary winner-loser approach via international courts is usually unsuccessful, as with the many maritime disputes in the South China Sea. Furthermore, whatever the dispute, the political economy determines outcome. The relatively stable and prosperous Yugoslavia crumbled after disruption in the 1980s. The lesson for contested corners of the globe is that this is how states are made or broken. What about state structure? Like Yugoslavia, many federations have come and gone. The US and Switzerland are most successful. The Soviet Union was less so, and the Egypt-Syria-Libya and Singapore-Malaysia federations were short-lived. Several contemporary federated countries remain strife-ridden works in progress. When factors of economy and democracy are stripped out, neither federations nor unitary states (such as Afghanistan, Haiti and Lebanon) are superior in terms of stability. That is worth remembering when prescribing governance models for conflicted Myanmar, Iraq and Syria. What matters more is 'ethnicisation'. Genetic variations among humans do not result in biologically defined racial differences. But social, cultural and religious variety are easily manipulated. Yugoslavia illustrated how ambitious leaders instrumentalised the scant differences between Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats and Muslim Bosniaks. The lesson for outsiders is to beware the challenges of stretching such fault lines, as the European Commission (now Union) did by hurrying to recognise Serbia, Slovenia and Croatia, thereby entrenching their ethnic majorities. Germany – haunted by its past Nazi role in the Balkans – led the policy to stabilise post-Yugoslav turmoil through 'ethnic cantonisation'. That left multi-ethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina open to bitter warring in the early 1990s. Misdirected bombs and bullets wreak collateral damage among nearby innocents, weaponised language triggers wider horrendous psycho-social trauma transmitted down generations Colonial ethnicisation led to the 1994 Rwanda genocide that included a failed UN peacekeeping mission. No lessons were learnt as the Srebrenica massacre of nearly 8,400 Bosnian Muslims unfolded a year later, watched by a UN protection force. That genocides happen under public gaze and are rarely prevented is the sombre conclusion. The quest for justice in Srebrenica provides more lessons, the first obstacle for accountability being the recognition of a genocide. This was first determined by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 2004 and confirmed by the International Court of Justice in 2007. By then, the genocide was over. All genocides suffer the same slow reckoning, leaving survivors to get what comfort they can from subsequent commemorations. One reason for tardiness is that states prefer genocide determination to be left to international mechanisms, which take time to negotiate. That allows states to avoid inconvenient implications for foreign relations, although the Genocide Convention empowers them to judge genocide cases. Germany and France have boldly done so, but selective determinations are perceived as political, undermining the universal significance of the most egregious crimes against humanity. Meanwhile, criminal justice for genocide requires finding individuals guilty. That usually means leaders because genocide is generally an act of state or authority. Thus, guilty verdicts get misrepresented as symbolic shaming of a whole nation. This is evident now in rising global anti-Semitism because of Israeli war tactics. After the Srebrenica verdict, Serbian nationalists felt insulted. 'We are not a genocidal people' was a popular slogan. And so, denial became Serbian state policy, hampering collective healing. The country remains mired in citizen discontent with unresolved historical undercurrents, including the further 'ethnicised' loss of Kosovo in 2008. Bosnia and Herzegovina also remains a fractured land. The divisive legacy continues with the neighbouring Russia-Ukraine war, where many Serbians feel a cultural affinity with Russia while the EU supports Ukraine. Russian leaders have been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity, while Russia invokes alleged Ukrainian collusion with Nazi genocidaires during the Second World War. The discomfiting conclusion is that genocides provide excuses for future bad behaviours. Srebrenica also left the world more divided, as indicated by the 2024 UN General Assembly vote that established July 11 as the day for commemorating the genocide. Just 84 states voted in favour while 68 abstained and 19 opposed. The horror that should have united the world has, instead, sanctioned toxic denialism. That is echoed in current controversy on whether or not Gazan suffering under Israeli attack constitutes genocide. The stark lesson for others seeking genocide-related redress – for example, Sudan's Darfuris, Iraq's Yazidis, Myanmar's Rohingya or Ethiopia's Tigrayans – is that adversarial western judicial traditions can trigger angry pushback rather than contrite 'never-again' pledges. Such justice may seed further conflict when remembrances give prominence to a predominant category of victim while overshadowing other suffering. As with those who also suffered – such as righteous non-Jews during the Holocaust, 'good' Serbs in Bosnia, Hutus in Rwanda, Buddhists in Myanmar or Arabs in Darfur. The paucity of Nelson Mandelas means that inclusive justice through truth and reconciliation is generally not favoured. Srebrenica's lessons are not static as each generation sees the past with new eyes including the significance of genocide. Especially in our era where wars are waged not only through drones and missiles but via words to demonise and dispirit opponents. The most potent verbal assaults deploy the language of genocide because the implicit moral censure is a powerful mobiliser of political narratives that continue in Central and Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, the brutalities that accompany modern conflict, be it sexual violence in Darfur or starvation in Gaza, mean that victims and observers struggle to find language adequate for their pain and outrage. And so, cries of genocide get more common, regardless of the strict criteria of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Invoking genocidal language by human rights violators and defenders alike is one reason why today's wars never appear to end. Because while misdirected bombs and bullets wreak collateral damage among nearby innocents, weaponised language triggers wider horrendous psycho-social trauma transmitted down generations. As the flowers laid during Srebrenica commemorations fade, their biggest message is that when there are no universal settled truths, or if narratives around the lived experiences of affected people are sharply contested, peace retreats further away.
Fox News
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- Fox News
Broadway star Billy Porter says 'Black people have replaced the Jews' while promoting revival of 'Cabaret'
Actor Billy Porter said "Black people have replaced the Jews" in today's world during an interview on Monday about his revival of the musical "Cabaret" with actors of color. In the play, Porter plays "Emcee," an American fleeing the Jim Crow South in the 1930s who ends up in a concentration camp in Europe. He told "CBS Mornings" this was the first time three Black actors had played the lead roles in the musical, and compared how Black people are being treated today to how Jews were treated during the rise of the Nazi party in Germany. "This is the first time in the 60-year history that all three of those characters have been African-American in a commercial production," he said. "And with what's going on in the world right now, Black people have replaced the Jews in this sort of configuration of what we're going through." Cabaret's original plot portrays a nightclub in Berlin as the Nazis rise to power in the late 1920s and early 1930s, and has several prominent Jewish characters. Porter described the production as "a call to action" for audiences. "I hope this piece is when you come to see it, you know, it lights a fire under booties, so that we can remind ourselves that love always wins, and all we have to do is get out in the streets and do our work," he continued. "CBS Mornings" anchor Gayle King agreed, remarking, "We need that reminder." The clip was first flagged by TikTok influencer Ben Lebofsky on X. "I'm sorry- Black people have WHAT??" he wrote in response to the clip. His post reached over one million views in 48 hours. Porter also told CBS that he was turned down from auditioning for the role in the late 1990s but feels like getting the part now is timely. "With the state of the world right now and with art as my activism, as my resistance, I'm right where I'm supposed to be for this piece," he said. A spokesperson for Porter did not immediately return Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Russia Today
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
Ukrainian mayor digs up bodies of WWII Soviet troops for ‘trade' (PHOTOS)
Ukraine is ready to exchange the remains of hundreds of Soviet army soldiers, unearthed during the dismantling of a World War II memorial in the city of Lviv, for captured Ukrainian servicemen, mayor Andrey Sadoviy has claimed. Following a Western-backed coup in 2014, Kiev launched a policy of 'decommunization,' erasing Soviet-era heritage – while glorifying those who opposed Russia for any reason, including nationalist militias who collaborated with Nazi Germany and committed atrocities during WWII. 'The Hill of Glory from the Soviet occupation period in Lviv no longer exists,' Sadoviy wrote on Telegram on Wednesday, claiming that the final 355 sets of remains were exhumed with all due 'respect to memory.' 'We are ready to trade all these remains for Ukrainian defenders,' he said, adding that various excavated artifacts would be transferred to the 'Territory of Terror' museum. Sadoviy did not clarify whether the offer was serious, as he also noted that the remains would be reburied elsewhere – while mocking the fact that one of the fallen soldiers shared a surname with the Russian president. The burial site dates back to the World War I era, when it was selected as a resting place for Russian soldiers perished in the Battle of Galicia. It was later shut down under Polish rule and completely leveled during the German occupation. After WWII, it was restored to honor thousands of Soviet troops who died liberating Lviv from the Nazis in 1944. The unusual proposal to trade Soviet-era remains comes amid ongoing prisoner-of-war exchanges between Kiev and Moscow, agreed during two rounds of negotiations in Istanbul in recent months. In what it called a unilateral humanitarian gesture – dismissed by Kiev as 'propaganda' – Moscow repatriated over 6,000 Ukrainian remains, while receiving only 79 Russian bodies in return, according to Russia's chief negotiator, Vladimir Medinsky. President Vladimir Putin has previously condemned the destruction of Soviet war memorials, describing those responsible as 'idiots' who only reinforce Russia's stated goal of 'de-Nazifying' Ukraine.
Washington Post
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Can Trump revoke citizenship, and how often does it happen worldwide?
The Trump administration has repeatedly threatened the citizenship of certain Americans — be it the president mulling 'taking away' comedian Rosie O'Donnell's or the Justice Department pledging to prioritize stripping it from naturalized citizens. Worldwide, the practice of stripping a person of citizenship has increased in recent decades, with more countries strengthening laws in the name of national security, experts say. Immigration and citizenship researchers warn of the potential for governments to weaponize such laws against political dissidents or opponents. The United Nations says nationality is a human right. 'Citizenship is a person's most fundamental legal status,' said Lucas van der Baaren, a researcher at the Global Citizenship Observatory and the University of Copenhagen. 'Our access to rights is dependent on having that status. Once you lose that, your entire life is turned upside down.' The majority — about two-thirds — of the world's countries have some sort of provision allowing for the stripping of citizenship, usually for reasons of disloyalty or national security such as serving in a foreign army, van der Baaren said. In 79 countries, the government can revoke citizenship if a person, usually a naturalized citizen, commits a serious criminal offense, he said. Countries mostly moved away from the practice after it was weaponized by Nazi Germany to strip tens of thousands of Jews and others of their status and property. But following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, more nations — particularly in Europe — began pushing to strengthen their laws in the name of national security, van der Baaren said. This year, Sweden announced plans to amend its constitution so that anyone convicted of crimes perceived as threatening to the state can be stripped of their citizenship. In Germany, a leaked paper revealed that the country's conservative political parties wanted to enact the ability to revoke citizenship from 'supporters of terrorism, antisemites and extremists.' Under the 1961 U.N. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, a signatory nation 'shall not deprive a person of its nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless' — meaning those countries should move to strip citizenship only if the person has citizenship with another country. The U.S. is not a signatory to the convention. 'That's problematic because then only people with dual citizenships can be affected by these provisions, and those are people usually with migration backgrounds,' van der Baaren said, adding that the legal restrictions could lead to discrimination. In one recent case involving three people convicted of terrorism-related crimes, the Dutch government moved in March to strip the citizenship of two defendants because they were also citizens of Turkey and Morocco, while the third was a Dutch citizen with no other nationality. The Amsterdam District Court ruled against the government, saying its distinction between mono-nationals and dual nationals amounted to discrimination based on ethnic origin. The government is appealing the decision. Some of the most high-profile recent government revocations of citizenship have involved the repatriation of nationals purported to have joined or fought for the Islamic State in Syria. In 2023, Shamima Begum, a U.K.-born woman who left the country 10 years ago at age 15 to join the Islamic State, lost her appeal to keep her British citizenship. The U.K. government argued that stripping Begum of her citizenship did not make her stateless because she has a right to Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, but Bangladesh said she was not a citizen. As of this year, she remained in a detention camp in northern Syria. That same year, an Ottawa court ordered the Canadian government to extradite four men with alleged Islamic State links home from Syria after previously allowing the repatriation of a small number of women and children. Canada was one of the few countries to harden its laws against revoking citizenship, with then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau overturning his predecessor's more restrictive measures, saying: 'A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.' But the lesser known cases should be of concern, as well, van der Baaren argued, because those are the ones that raise questions of abuse. Russia — where the Kremlin has stripped the citizenship of a climate advocate, a campaign manager of the only opposition candidate to run against President Vladimir Putin, the head of the Azerbaijani diaspora and many more — passed legislation in 2023 allowing authorities to strip naturalized Russians for certain crimes, including breaching Moscow's wartime censorship laws banning any criticism of the military. Bahrain has revoked the citizenship of hundreds of people since 2012, including 'human rights defenders, political activists, and journalists,' according to Human Rights Watch, with the 'vast majority' left stateless. Following a constitutional change in 2023, Nicaragua's government stripped the citizenship of at least 300 domestic critics, forcing opponents of President Daniel Ortega to flee the country. 'If you look at the textbook provisions themselves, they're quite broad,' van der Baaren said. 'There are clear risks that these provisions will be used to get rid of political dissidents.' As with other countries, it's difficult to track how many times the U.S. government has moved to revoke citizenship in recent years. According to the Immigration Legal Resource Center, the federal government filed an average of 11 denaturalization cases a year from 1990 to 2017, with year-by-year numbers ticking upward after 9/11 and again under President Barack Obama. Trump's first administration sought to expand those efforts, with the Justice Department launching a section focused on denaturalization in 2020. Irina Manta, a Hofstra University law professor who tracks denaturalization cases, tallied 168 denaturalization cases in federal courts during Trump's first term. Americans have some protections in place when it comes to retaining their nationality. In 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot take away citizenship without a person's consent — but left open an exception for cases involving fraud during the citizenship process. That exception has been open to broad interpretation, said Robertson, the Case Western Reserve professor. In 2018, one man had his citizenship revoked over a name discrepancy that some immigration attorneys argued could have been the result of a translation error rather than intentional fraud. In June, a federal judge granted the Justice Department's request to revoke the citizenship of Elliott Duke, a British-born naturalized American who served in the U.S. Army. Duke was arrested on child pornography charges in May 2013 — four months after becoming a citizen — and convicted in 2014, according to the Justice Department. The agency argued that when Duke applied for citizenship in 2012, he listed only a speeding ticket when the application asked whether the applicant 'ever committed a crime or offense for which you were not arrested' — despite confessing to investigators to possessing and distributing child pornography before and after becoming a citizen, the department said. Robertson argued that it was time to close out the exception set forth by the 1967 ruling. 'The government has really tried to abuse that exception, and the security of citizenship is just too important,' she said. 'I would delete that footnote and hope that the Supreme Court will hold that denaturalization, full stop, is inconsistent with American democracy.' Adam Taylor and Robyn Dixon contributed to this report.
Times
13-07-2025
- Times
Goebbels' love nest to be torn down if it cannot be sold
A lakeside villa dubbed Joseph Goebbels' 'love nest' was once cherished by Nazi Germany's propaganda tsar as a getaway he used to seduce film actresses and write his historic Total War speech. Today, however, it has proven to be a real estate agent's nightmare, standing deserted and weatherworn, with flaking white facades and weeds growing among uneven flagstones. The steep-gabled 'Waldhof', or forest manor, on the shore of Lake Bogensee outside Berlin boasts floor-to-ceiling terrace windows that could be automatically lowered into the ground. It still has the original wood-panelled walls, marble window sills, brass fittings and fine wrought-iron front door. 'All alone. I'm so happy,' Goebbels wrote in his diary of his time staying at the villa. 'Surrounded by woods, withering leaves, mist and rain. An idyll of solitude.'
