Transgenerational Obligations: Twenty-first Century Germany and the Holocaust

Abstract Has history assigned special obligations to Germans that can transcend generation borders? Do the grandchildren of Holocaust perpetrators or the grandchildren of inactive bystanders carry any obligations that are only related to their ancestry? These questions will be at the centre of this investigation. It will be argued that five different models of justification are available for or against transgenerational obligations, namely liberalism, the unique evil argument, the psychological view, a form of consequentialist pragmatism and the community‐based approach. Only two of these models stand up to philosophical scrutiny. Applying the community‐based model leads to the conclusion that young Germans do indeed have indirect, indeterminate, but strict obligations that transcend generation borders. However, it will be argued that only the obligation of compensation can be restricted to Germans. The remaining two Holocaust‐related obligations of prevention and remembrance have to be seen as universal.     

Assessment of normal values in 5- to 9-year-old children with the Kurth motometric Rostock-Oseretzky Scale

197 children, from 5.0 to 9.0, were subjected to testing by the Rostock-Oseretzki scale. By calculation in the customary manner, the age-group 5.0 to 7.0 was found to achieve an MQ result of 115, the age-group 7.1 to 9.0 one of 130. Furthermore, an association between individual motometric tests and findings in the area of child neurology and function was established.