It's interesting how when you are loosing the argument you resort to personal abuse
Well seeing as you started with an insult it goes to show you had lost before you even started. Look champ, I'm not commenting on ww2 suffering, you brought that topic in and the only reason why I can imagine you did that is because you're either really really stupid and can't see how it isn't relevant to the essence of what I stated or you knew your argument is flawed so you started to argue towards a point (that I didn't make) where you can be first to shout "racist!" Sorry, you're really not up to this and it showed before you even got out of the gate. Your "trap" was and is entirely in your imagination and if you believe that to be sophistication then you are beyond help.
The fact that you have omitted the second part of my post speaks volumes
Yes it does.
because you just realized that your belief if put into practice would mean that the German government would have never apologized for its past
No that is not the reason why. If the Germans
want to feel a collective responsibility then that's their decision. Notice the word in bold here kid because that IS the only thing I've been arguing here and you still haven't got it.
Or I am getting you wrong,
Completely. I am not commenting on what happened you imbecile. Until otherwise proven, ww2 isn't up for debate and why you're insinuating it is reveals a great many unflattering things about you.
since you believe that the present generation bears no reprehensibility for the past
I never stated that.
I only showed you that if we are to use these analogies where by we refer to a country as person then that is exactly the belief YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE. Let's back it up again kid and see if you can catch the train this time. This is using the terminology YOU have defended.
If your father/son murdered someone, would you feel any sense of responsibility or guilt for the victims fate?
Ok present day "Germany" becomes the child and Nazi "Germany" becomes the father:
A father commits a terrible crime, he kills and tortures 6 members of a family (let's say there's 40 people in the family) and 6 other people from other families. Do we make his children pay restitution? The courts of most western countries generally seem to say "no."
Is it now clear why referring to societies in such simplistic and reduced terms is a very dangerous thing? Do you now see how issues can become clouded? Do you now understand how ascertaining the intricacies of societal and cultural matters is lost in such reductions?
f'n hell can any other regular posters here verify if that is clear?