kbg32
neo-romanticist
The Leitz story has been widely reported and verified.
Sparrow
Veteran
... no I agree, I used skeptical in it's true sense (not the dog-whistle one) as with all these things it's all shades of grey rather than clear cut.
So many of the truths I learned in my youth have had to be qualified over years, only this week I discovered how petrol was supplied to the allied armies following the d-day invasion ...
P. S. for the same reason I don't rush to condemn Polanski
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
That is a bit less likely. Both Leitz and Carl Zeiss Jena had a reputation as "left-wing" companies in the twenties. But Leitz was personally and individually owned by a prominent left-wing activist (Ernst Leitz jun. was one of the board members of the left-liberal DDP and a financial backer of the social democrat anti-Nazi militia Reichsbund) - so his position was nothing the Nazis could do much about if they did not want to arrest him (and ruin a important, successfully exporting company over that), and he managed to hold on to his position and to help at least some Nazi victims around him to escape.
CZJ by contrast was owned by a secular foundation (whose board consisted of state university representatives) and its social democrat board was due to the fact that they resided in a state with social democrat government, with correspondingly appointed board members - when the Nazis took over, they immediately replaced them with Nazi party officials, and leftist Zeiss was history...
Sparrow
Veteran
OK via a democratic process ... which he then abused admittedly
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Agreeably so!
DominikDUK
Well-known
Spielberg's Schindler List is an interesting thing because it showed that there were a few Germans/Austrians who actively helped jews (I am not too happy about the portrayal of Oscar Schindler and the complete neglect of his wife who helped quite a lot). Also industrialists helping jews was never really a part of the public discourse in Germany and Austria which was a bad thing imo not the helping but not being part of the discourse. Furthermore Oscar Schindler was unemployed and without his party membership would never have been able to get the factory and do some good. Even within the parties higher echelon there were people who opposed the Regime Wilhelm Canaris is one of them. We should talk more about the people opposing the regime because they show us and future generations that one can and should oppose a dictatorship and there will be dictators and totalitarian systems in the future of that I am certain.
Sparrow
Veteran
... I didn't realise Liberace even knew Himmler
DominikDUK
Well-known
Sevo makes a good point, the NAZI regime took over the control of companies who had some strategic importance (airplane manufacturers, Optic companies, etc...). Also often forgotten the first Victim of the NAZI Regime was the opposition especially the socialdemocrats and communists. So anyone having even a slight leftist view was in danger of getting deported. Leitz just like Hugo Junkers was vunerable to Blackmail for different Reasons though.
DominikDUK
Well-known
Let's get back to photography! So is that a clutch purse or a hat?
I'd say a a pillow
Jamie123
Veteran
He does openly admit to having had intercourse with a 13 year old, though. What's there to be skeptical about??
Sparrow
Veteran
... so that precludes any and all mitigating circumstances?
DominikDUK
Well-known
In Samantha Geimer Autobiography she writes that both her and Polanski are victims of the media and the justice system and that she has email contact with Polanski but she also wrote that he raped her and that the rape was not the worsed thing about this affair the aftermath the treatment and interviews by the police, journalists and corrupt members of the california justice system was worse than the actual rape. The later thing was interesting to me and made me think about how victims of crimes are treated by the media plastering photographs of the victims across the frontpage and Websites. The Victims of crimes really seem to get violated a second time and in this case one could agree with Sonntags view of photography as violence. Stripping the victim of it's anonymity and hurting them again and again.
Jamie123
Veteran
What are the mitigating circumstances in this case, though? He had numerous chances to state his case in various interviews and his basic defense has always been that she was a slut and she wanted it (I paraphrase). Now I personally really have a hard time believing that a 13 year would request a man in his 40s to anally penetrate her but hey, what do I know. Maybe she was a movie connoisseur and a big fan of his. (I can imagine Chinatown was a big hit amongst pre-teens.) But even if that were the case, he should've known better.
Look, I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt and not rushing to conclusions but at a certain point, after all is said and done, this not-passing-judgment thing does get a bit ridiculous.
Joe AC
Well-known
.......Yes
DominikDUK
Well-known
Jamie I believe the victims view counts more than our moral outrage also Polanski regretted his acts (I believe the basis of the justice system). Polanski fled the US because a Judge did not follow a promise the US justice system (DA) made to Polanski, what about honouring an agreement. Also Polanski never called her a slut, but stated that she willingly had sex with him, something the victim denies btw.
Polanski did a disgusting and heinous crime but as the victim stated his crime was not the biggest one (for the victim) in this case the media incl. the press photographers did worse yet we don't seem to have a problem with press photographers and attention grapping members of the justice system.
Polanski did a disgusting and heinous crime but as the victim stated his crime was not the biggest one (for the victim) in this case the media incl. the press photographers did worse yet we don't seem to have a problem with press photographers and attention grapping members of the justice system.
Last edited:
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
I find it a bit odd that the victim's mother would drive her 13 years old daughter to have a private photo shoot with Polanski alone at Jack Nicholson's house, another well known pervert. Polanski was already known for his weakness for teenagers, having been Nastassja Kinski's lover when she was underage. My understanding is that the mother was either hoping for a relationship to start between her daughter and Polanski, or at least to get a lead role for her daughter in one of his movies. The whole affair does look and smell very fishy.
DominikDUK
Well-known
That's Hollywood for you there is a reason for the Boulevard of Broken dreams and the casting couch thing.
Children are unfortunately to often victims of their parents ambitions.
Children are unfortunately to often victims of their parents ambitions.
Jamie123
Veteran
Whether or not the victim got over the crime is rather irrelevant when it comes to passing moral judment on what he did. And if regretting the crime is enough to get absolved for one's acts then I guess Adolf Eichmann didn't get a fair trial.
Obviously he never used the word "slut" (as I said, I paraphrased) but you can look up interviews on youtube where he defends himself by saying that she was sexually active, that she was a "young woman" and that it was consensual. Sorry, but that basically boils down to calling her a slut who wanted it. And again, even if that had been the case it would've still been his responsibility to say no, given the fact that he was 30 years her senior.
Look, it is obvious that a rape victim will suffer from being publically stigmatized as a rape victim and carrying that label for the rest of her life. That's basically the reason why many rapes go unreported.
To use a hacky phrase, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because the media bears some responsibility for her grief doesn't mean Polanski is any less to blame. On the contrary. It all started with his actions, which he did fully knowing that it was wrong, so it can be argued that even the pain she suffered from the media attention is his fault.
I don't know why you would assume that I have no problem with the media, paparazzi or misconduct in the justice system. But those are separate issues and they have no mitigating effects whatsoever on the crime that preceded them. All I'm saying is that I reserve the right to pass moral judgement on him for what he did and what he admitted to.
EDIT: Btw, I should add that I really do not feel very strongly about the whole thing and it doesn't keep me up at night. I'm just making a point that sometimes it's ok to pass judgement.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The normal stated goals of judicial punishment are retribution, reformation and deterrence. You could of course argue that "satisfying moral outrage" is an aspect of retribution, but I suspect that this is stretching it a bit. At this remove -- about a third of a century -- it is easy to see how further pursuit would satisfy moral outrage but it is hard to see how any of the three normal heads are served, the more so given the victim's wishes (no further retribution), the fact that Polanski doesn't appear to have done it again and the high level of publicity which would, one might think, deter many: "If I rape a 13-year-old I will probably be pursued and caught." The last is probably more true now than it was in the late 1970s.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Where were Polanski and Kinsky living at the time of their alleged affair? In France the age of consent is 15; in Germany 14. "Under age" is something of a cultural construct.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.