And I ain't keen on it going back to em, insofar as even if I don't think of property very highly in the first place I think of property begotten as hereditary rulers of states is an even less pleasant form.
Advertisement
by Kubra » Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:25 pm
And I ain't keen on it going back to em, insofar as even if I don't think of property very highly in the first place I think of property begotten as hereditary rulers of states is an even less pleasant form.
by Loben III » Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:30 pm
Kubra wrote:And I ain't keen on it going back to em, insofar as even if I don't think of property very highly in the first place I think of property begotten as hereditary rulers of states is an even less pleasant form.Loben III wrote:
and i truly believe that the Hohenzollerns should get their property back from the thieves who stole it from them under dubious pretenses.
by Zentralafrika Union » Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:32 pm
by Kubra » Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:35 pm
As has been said, it weren't illegal for the GDR to seize what it did, nor does it give the german state any legal impetus to return it. That don't make it right, but by the same token the legality of the means by which they came across their property ain't a matter of right, either. Which is why, of course, this whole thing is just folks making value judgements, the german administration included.Loben III wrote:Kubra wrote: And I ain't keen on it going back to em, insofar as even if I don't think of property very highly in the first place I think of property begotten as hereditary rulers of states is an even less pleasant form.
while thats well and good for you, what about actual tangible facts.
the Hohenzollerns had possessions confiscated by the USSR and their lackeys, which was then put into the GDRs rather unfortunate Custody. now some 30 years after the GDRs dissolvement, the head of the family wants some of the possessions back the modern German govt is being as stubborn as it can legally be due to a rather dubious claim that the Crown prince has given "substantial" Support to the Nazi Regime.
by Loben III » Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:36 pm
Kubra wrote:As has been said, it weren't illegal for the GDR to seize what it did, nor does it give the german state any legal impetus to return it. That don't make it right, but by the same token the legality of the means by which they came across their property ain't a matter of right, either. Which is why, of course, this whole thing is just folks making value judgements, the german administration included.Loben III wrote:
while thats well and good for you, what about actual tangible facts.
the Hohenzollerns had possessions confiscated by the USSR and their lackeys, which was then put into the GDRs rather unfortunate Custody. now some 30 years after the GDRs dissolvement, the head of the family wants some of the possessions back the modern German govt is being as stubborn as it can legally be due to a rather dubious claim that the Crown prince has given "substantial" Support to the Nazi Regime.
by Punished UMN » Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:38 pm
Loben III wrote:Punished UMN wrote:The problem with this applied to politics though is that, without an intimate knowledge of a political figure, it's difficult to ascertain what is selfish, malicious, or just incompetence or neglect. And then you have to take into account social conditioning and how that can affect people's character.
would you say that the Tsar was merely incompetent?
by Kubra » Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:40 pm
I'd say it doesn't because it doesn't abolish property in general, ya'll say it doesn't because it won't restore the monarchy. Tomato, tomato.Loben III wrote:Kubra wrote: As has been said, it weren't illegal for the GDR to seize what it did, nor does it give the german state any legal impetus to return it. That don't make it right, but by the same token the legality of the means by which they came across their property ain't a matter of right, either. Which is why, of course, this whole thing is just folks making value judgements, the german administration included.
yes and we all know the German administration always makes the right call.......
by UniversalCommons » Sun Dec 06, 2020 12:50 pm
by Nilokeras » Sun Dec 06, 2020 1:04 pm
by Punished UMN » Sun Dec 06, 2020 2:13 pm
Nilokeras wrote:Punished UMN wrote:Not necessarily, but I would say he was largely controlled by his advisors.
Like Louis XVI, Nicholas II always struck me as someone who wasn't incompetent per se but just someone who wasn't up for the challenges they happened to live through. Quiet, decent-hearted people who grew up enormously sheltered and not particularly well prepared for ruling which manifested in different ways - Louis through deference to courtiers and ministers, Nicholas through micromanagement and myopia. It's one of the pitfalls of absolute monarchism that it's these moments of inattention and inertia, rather than the truly horrible monarchs, that produces the worst results in many cases.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Big Eyed Animation, Carameon, Etwepe, Grinning Dragon, Mardesurria, Vorkat
Advertisement