Recommended For You

About the Author: The Atlantic

25 Comments

  1. Also ehrlich, some of the subtitles are absolutely horrible, and the way some of the stuff is cutted is awful. When reading the subtitles make sense, but the German guy is saying something entirely different. That is not making me like this kind of journalism :/

  2. The Atlantic titled their upload of this film, which is titled "Nazi VR" incorrectly. I wish they wouldn't do this kind of thing, it's click-bait, if they just wrote something like "how VR helps convict nazis" or something… The Atlantic usually posts excellent films that don't need click-bait titles on their you tube uploads! This one included.

  3. Germany overshot taking responsibility for the Nazi era, and descended into neurosis. I've come to think the collective German psyche is a hollow shell that will never truly recover from the war. The state is digitally reconstructing Auschwitz to prosecute a 90-something guy standing guard at a place where the state committed atrocities, during a time when you'd have likely been shot for refusing. The fact that modern Germans can still apologize to an interested audience for what happened before they were born seems to be the only thing giving them any meaning in their lives–and the fact that they can draw meaningless parallels to anodyne conservative opinions common to billions of people.

    "It's what we have to do, because we can't do anything else."

  4. “Ex post facto law” is a very sketchy and dangerous concept as can (and certainly does) steals the concept of crime as defined (and limited) by the law to one of a given ideological consensus no matter when, that is, that is not necessary that such consensus existed at the time of newly defined crime; that’s why it is not applied in the U.S., among other things.

    Then, being “intolerant of intolerance” is a logical contradiction, a paradox (as you should be intolerant towards the “intolerance against intolerance” by logical conclusion). Unless the real intention and more honest expression would be saying that a given set of ideological-philosophical-political (and even religious) views are tolerable and other set of ideological-philosophical-political (and even religious) views are NOT tolerable, and that is a simple sociological reality, even if for ideological reasons there is a fear to use a given word lest it conflict with a cuasi sacred premise (that tolerance per se can be a pure concept and a giver of all kinds of social goods). Establishing what’s acceptable and what is not would be more honest than making a hyperbolic paradoxical claim. Because there is no such thing as unlimited tolerance and by failing to define what is and what is not tolerable in specific but ample terms (and not relying only on the ghosts of the past) there is a danger that by avoiding one specific name identified with certain evils you end up accepting others that are basically clones once take away the tags.

    Hence, for instance, the danger is authoritarianism (whether Nazi, fascist or any kind of far right, far left, anything in between, religious, secular, etc.) instead of relying on just a specific and historically hurtful one.

    Freedom of speech (that doesn’t call for the commission of crimes, etc.) is the kind of tolerance that accepts even those speeches that, as long as don’t infringe those very specific limits, can be exposed and allowed. Etc.

    Thus, Germany may avoid Nazis to reemerge (and that’s a good thing) but may see other kinds of authoritarianism to arise, as long as they can disguise themselves with the right clothes and it’s too late to “be honestly intolerant” against them.

  5. Following orders isn't a crime in the real world. Since we all now live in 1984 you can be prosecuted. Hitler was right.

  6. Great, now (((people))) are just going to put you shooting jews in a video game and then you will be arrested and it shows that you did it.

  7. Over seventy years later, the authoritarian-socialist state of Germany is still trying people for ex-post-facto crimes in what amounts to kangaroo courts. Let the elderly die in peace – not in prisons.

  8. I'm Jewish and I simply do not understand what is gained by prosecuting a 94 year old man. If it is a show trial, to whom are they showing? Neo-nazis? If it is to remember, why is a trial of a 94 year old man the best way to remember? The virtual reality machines can show and remember without a trial.

    Maybe a German citizen watching this can help explain it to me.

  9. Indeed, after watching this I am further convinced that today's "zionist" isn't very different than yesterday's nazi 🙁 How history repeats itself…

  10. The concentration camps along the US southern border need to be addressed as crimes, including the children ripped from their families and lost in the system.

  11. Come Grandfather who is still alive was a Nazi and has never been on trial. Guess he'll be one of them that never gets caught.

  12. Almost all Germany was nazi back in the 30s and early 40s, so go out and prosecute all the old people you can find. Ideology is product of a collective madness, you can not blame certain individuals.

Comments are closed.