[HN Gopher] German WWII Soldier Grave Found with Mesolithic Tool...
___________________________________________________________________
German WWII Soldier Grave Found with Mesolithic Tools, Roman and
Byzantine Coins
Author : petethomas
Score : 66 points
Date : 2024-11-20 05:07 UTC (9 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.labrujulaverde.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.labrujulaverde.com)
| hulitu wrote:
| > German WWII Soldier Grave Found with Mesolithic Tools, Roman
| and Byzantine Coins
|
| It is amazing what a bomb does to the surounding landscape. /s
| dvh wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-place_artifact
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Unfortunately, not a time traveler. That would be something else,
| finding a 4000 year old grave with someone with composite
| fillings, titanium bone implants, wearing the remains of a
| smartphone in various jewelry / clothing and, knowing how these
| things go, having a deeply engraved granite slab with a message
| to the future, something like "don't invent time travel!" or "do
| not Awaken the Dreamer!"
| arethuza wrote:
| Or as the Eschaton puts it "Thou shalt not violate causality
| within my historic light cone. Or else."
| InDubioProRubio wrote:
| Raining Telephones and Curators!
| libertine wrote:
| > Unfortunately, not a time traveler.
|
| _That 's what They want you to believe!_, for sure some
| conspiracy theorists will run with this, and probably be guests
| on Joe Rogan Podcast.
| aquova wrote:
| Very interesting find. I think it's not uncommon to find many
| eras of artifacts in the same site, simply because sites ranging
| back even to the neolithic continue to be used as time goes on.
| My layman assumption is that this was a decent sized community
| for a number of centuries that eventually died out, which this
| German solider happened to die on top of during the war.
| postepowanieadm wrote:
| It's more prosaic: he was carrying precious artifacts with him.
| cbogie wrote:
| spoils of war, spoiled
| mossTechnician wrote:
| I thought there was a more concise way to write "German WWII
| soldier".
| aleksiy123 wrote:
| I was kinda curious if Nazi and German WWII soldier is
| equivalent.
|
| From an academic point of view it seems not. But from a popular
| point of view it probably is.
|
| Some threads I found on the topic.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/40gq95/is_it_fair_...
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3hw2fv/comme...
| lolinder wrote:
| > From an academic point of view it seems not.
|
| More than a purely academic point of view, the distinction
| actually does matter. It's the difference between someone who
| affirmatively made a choice to join the Nazi organization and
| someone who simply didn't actively decide to dodge the draft
| or desert. The level of agency invested into the Nazi cause
| varies dramatically, and it's useful to have language that
| can distinguish between those shades.
|
| We can get into philosophical discussions about whether it's
| worse to affirmatively support evil than to just go with the
| flow and not make waves either way, but that's more than an
| academic discussion--it has real relevance for today.
| wutwutwat wrote:
| Every soldier in the German military at that time was a
| nazi soldier. They reported to hitler, who was the person
| who brought the nazi party into power, the party who
| controlled the government and military. They took orders
| from nazis. They were nazis.
|
| Their officers had skulls on their uniforms. They were
| rounding up and slaughtering people they viewed as less
| than them, they had posters in the streets painting them as
| rodents and infections.
|
| Nobody saw all of that and said "well, I don't want to
| dodge a draft, I better just sign up and do this evil shit,
| it's my moral duty to serve". Nobody was blind to what was
| happening and nobody accidentally went and did those things
| without believing they were somehow right. They were doing
| those things because they wanted to, the same way
| everything any person does when they have something that
| they have the power over to choose between.
|
| Edit: not sure why I'm getting downvoted. Downvote the
| people trying to claim German soldiers in wwII were not
| nazis.
| aguaviva wrote:
| You're getting downvoted because what you're saying is
| just historically wrong.
|
| You can call them all "bad" if you want. But (regardless
| of whether they committed war crimes) the Nazis and the
| armed forces were different (though obviously
| overlapping) subsets. This is not an academic distinction
| at all, and is extremely important if one is to
| understand how the dictatorship and the Final Solution
| actually worked.
|
| See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42276731
| wutwutwat wrote:
| > The German Army (German: Heer, German: [he:a] i; lit.
| 'army') was the land forces component of the
| Wehrmacht,[b] the regular armed forces of Nazi Germany,
| from 1935 until it effectively ceased to exist in 1945
| and then was formally dissolved in August 1946.[4] During
| World War II, a total of about 13.6 million volunteers
| and conscripts served in the German Army.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army_(1935%E2%80%9
| 319...
|
| So far, seems one army existed. The German army. That
| army was the army of Nazi Germany. that army was Nazi
| Germany's army.
|
| > The Wehrmacht (German pronunciation: ['ve:amaxt] i,
| lit. 'defence force') were the unified armed forces of
| Nazi Germany from 1935 to 1945. It consisted of the Heer
| (army), the Kriegsmarine (navy) and the Luftwaffe (air
| force). The designation "Wehrmacht" replaced the
| previously used term Reichswehr (Reich Defence) and was
| the manifestation of the Nazi regime's efforts to rearm
| Germany to a greater extent than the Treaty of Versailles
| permitted.[11]
|
| Here's probably the most important thing to read, because
| it directly disproves you
|
| > After the death of President Paul von Hindenburg on 2
| August 1934, Adolf Hitler assumed the office of President
| of Germany, and thus became commander in chief. In
| February 1934, the Defence Minister Werner von Blomberg,
| acting on his own initiative, had all of the Jews serving
| in the Reichswehr given an automatic and immediate
| dishonorable discharge.[33] Again, on his own initiative
| Blomberg had the armed forces adopt Nazi symbols into
| their uniforms in May 1934.[34] In August of the same
| year, on Blomberg's initiative and that of the
| Ministeramt chief General Walther von Reichenau, the
| entire military took the Hitler oath, an oath of personal
| loyalty to Hitler.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht
|
| The German army adopted Nazi symbols and swore an oath to
| hitler.
| aguaviva wrote:
| _Here's probably the most important thing to read,
| because it directly disproves you_
|
| It's not the snippets you're quoting that are wrong.
| You're just reading them wrong, and drawing plainly
| broken inferences from them.
|
| For example, the statement "Army X was a manifestation of
| the Y regime's Z" does not imply the statement "Army X is
| simply a subset of Y" or even "Everyone in Army X
| basically agreed with Y". Of course it doesn't. Any more
| than being a member of the Red Army meant that one was
| communist, simply because it happens to be true that "The
| Red Army was the army of Soviet Russia".
|
| Similarly, this idea that people taking an oath to anyone
| or their platitudes means, in all cases, they actually
| _believe_ that oath, and that what the oath says
| describes what they believe. In the context of the huge
| fact that not everyone who joined the various fighting
| units did so voluntarily -- in fact a large majority were
| outright drafted (or shoehorned from civilian law
| enforcement roles, including many regular policemen).
|
| Does that excuse them of culpability in what they may
| have done -- obviously not. But to think they simply
| believed everything they were asked to believe at face
| value goes against everything we know about human nature,
| and the basic social reality of was going on in Germany
| and Europe at the time. And about the fundamental
| psychological and operational mechanics by which the
| Final Solution worked.
|
| And then there's this: That army was the
| army of Nazi Germany. That army was Nazi Germany's army.
|
| As if simply calling Germany "Nazi Germany" adds some
| weight to the point you're trying to make. Of course it
| doesn't. As a simple, direct proof of this -- let's just
| drop the unnecessary instances of your favorite word in
| that sentence: That army was the army of
| Germany. That army was Germany's army.
|
| And ask ourselves how much sense it makes.
| ajuc wrote:
| I agree we shouldn't let "regular Germans" from that time
| escape the responsibility for WW2. Be it through voting
| for Hitler, supporting nazis in other ways, or simply
| ignoring the threat and not uniting and voting against
| Hitler before it was too late.
|
| But you wrote "every soldier in German military" which is
| just wrong. German military had many soldiers forcibly
| drafted from occupied countries. One famous example is
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_Tusk
|
| People downvote you because you were confidently wrong.
| wutwutwat wrote:
| > I agree we shouldn't let "regular Germans" from that
| time escape the responsibility for WW2. Be it through
| voting for Hitler, supporting nazis in other ways, or
| simply ignoring the threat and not uniting and voting
| against Hitler before it was too late.
|
| I did not say any of this, ever. Read my comment. Don't
| put words in my mouth.
|
| > After the death of President Paul von Hindenburg on 2
| August 1934, Adolf Hitler assumed the office of President
| of Germany, and thus became commander in chief. In
| February 1934, the Defence Minister Werner von Blomberg,
| acting on his own initiative, had all of the Jews serving
| in the Reichswehr given an automatic and immediate
| dishonorable discharge.[33] Again, on his own initiative
| Blomberg had the armed forces adopt Nazi symbols into
| their uniforms in May 1934.[34] In August of the same
| year, on Blomberg's initiative and that of the
| Ministeramt chief General Walther von Reichenau, the
| entire military took the Hitler oath, an oath of personal
| loyalty to Hitler.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht
|
| The German army adopted Nazi symbols and swore an oath to
| hitler.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| As much as I dislike Nazis I'm going to have to disagree,
| there were Germans who were not Nazis in all walks of
| life including the military, and even every member of the
| Nazi party was not necessarily bad - Oskar Schindler was,
| after all, a member of the Nazi party.
|
| >Nobody saw all of that and said "well, I don't want to
| dodge a draft...
|
| Nobody saw all of that and said, shit if I dodge the
| draft they may give me the death penalty, no wait I'm
| wrong - that's exactly what they said.
|
| You also do not seem to have any particular dividing line
| between say, soldiers who were underage (later years of
| war) or actual adults?
|
| This article on American slavery seems to pertain here
| too https://medium.com/luminasticity/what-makes-you-
| think-you-wo... - what makes you think you would have
| been better - not you now, but a you born in Germany
| during the great Depression, came of age as World War II
| started, drafted into the Army but because of your
| character you would be able to stand against your
| society, your friends, the law and say no, I won't go.
| I'm not saying that's impossible, but it is rare.
|
| On what grounds of your character do you think you would
| be better than most of the population at that time? What
| great wrong have you opposed to your detriment and
| personal danger?
|
| Again - it may be that you would be better than almost
| everybody else at the time. But it seems more people
| think they would be than seems statistically possible,
| based on nothing other than being born "now" and knowing
| it is wrong "now", I would like some sterner examples of
| character to back up the moral self-regard.
| wutwutwat wrote:
| Disagree with facts all you want. I don't care. Neither
| do the facts.
|
| > After the death of President Paul von Hindenburg on 2
| August 1934, Adolf Hitler assumed the office of President
| of Germany, and thus became commander in chief. In
| February 1934, the Defence Minister Werner von Blomberg,
| acting on his own initiative, had all of the Jews serving
| in the Reichswehr given an automatic and immediate
| dishonorable discharge.[33] Again, on his own initiative
| Blomberg had the armed forces adopt Nazi symbols into
| their uniforms in May 1934.[34] In August of the same
| year, on Blomberg's initiative and that of the
| Ministeramt chief General Walther von Reichenau, the
| entire military took the Hitler oath, an oath of personal
| loyalty to Hitler.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht
|
| The German army adopted Nazi symbols and swore an oath to
| hitler.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| gee, I didn't disagree with any of that - I said that if
| people did not accept the draft they would be prosecuted
| and often received the death penalty, although also they
| could just be sent to a camp and worked to death.
|
| I also said that towards the end of the war Germany used
| underage soldiers - meaning as young as 16, I did not
| directly ask but implied that perhaps you did not think
| that underage soldiers were as culpable of being Nazis as
| the adults, but I see now by your strong commitment to
| your moral stature that I was wrong.
|
| I finally asked just what makes you think you would have
| been good and able to resist the pressure to go in the
| army, which you didn't answer. You have done an admirable
| job in opposing every response to you with copy pasted
| Wikipedia content it's true, but I'm afraid I wanted some
| more hard-nosed and non-online behaviors to confirm the
| ability to stand against evil.
| Archelaos wrote:
| > I was kinda curious if Nazi and German WWII soldier is
| equivalent.
|
| Try this excersise: Define "Nazi" and then see whether every
| German WWII soldier fits the definition.
|
| Additional excersise: Define it that way that no Allied
| soldier fits the definition.
|
| Then check whether the definition makes any sense as a
| political distinction.
|
| I never came across one.
| aguaviva wrote:
| Because they weren't all in the category you're referring to,
| of course.
|
| To misunderstand this (and apply the N-word to all of the
| regime's footsoldiers and helpers) is to fundamentally
| midunderstand how the dictatorship worked, and got so many
| millions of ordinary people to trudge along and do its dirty
| work. Or to at least shut up and try not to think too much
| about whatever they saw and heard.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> The first surprise was the discovery of a pit containing the
| remains of a German soldier, likely fallen in battle in February
| 1945 during the fights over the Grzybek bridge in the final days
| of World War II. However, what seemed to be a significant find
| soon revealed additional secrets, leading the team to an even
| older and extraordinary discovery.
|
| Contrary to almost all comments so far, the dead soldier and the
| artifacts are not related. And this is not a grave. This is where
| a soldier fell. A grave is where someone is buried, not the place
| where they were killed and lost to history. The soldier may have
| been wounded and hiding in the pit, or literally fell atop, but
| would not have been burried there by anyone. The older artifacts
| were there long before ww2.
| Arainach wrote:
| In practice, the term grave is often used for any final resting
| place whether intentionally buried or not e.g. "watery grave".
| tokai wrote:
| He could very well have been buried. Getting rid of the corpses
| after a battle is important.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| A modern battlefield grave is identifiable. Any trained
| archaeologist would spot such a grave, describe and most
| likely report it to authorities. There are recognizable
| signs. We dont dispose of dead soldiers in unmarked pits, not
| individuals.
| Arainach wrote:
| By February 1945 the war was going poor enough for Germany
| that it's unlikely all such graves had full procedures
| followed.
| romanhn wrote:
| Literally from the article:
|
| "Popkiewicz believes these coins may have belonged to the
| German soldier, possibly a numismatics enthusiast, as they hail
| from several countries the German 73rd Infantry Division likely
| traversed, to which the soldier may have belonged. The
| hypothesis suggests that the soldier collected ancient coins as
| a hobby or perhaps exchanged or acquired them during his
| military movements."
| codr7 wrote:
| Given the Nazi interest in ancient cultures I find the hobby-
| theory to be the least likely explanation.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| The Nazis were intensely interested in ancient cultures; why do
| you think they called themselves "Aryans" and represented
| themselves with a swastika?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-29 23:00 UTC)