The blurry line between religious and crazy

Sometimes even the same guy. Claus von Stauffenberg was not a Nazi, but he took part in invading Poland and supported enslaving the Poles for German profit. On the other hand, he detested the Nazi ideology and tried to kill Hitler. Rest assured, we're not ignorant of Nazi evils. My wife visited Dachau and Auschwitz as a teenager - her grandfather had taken part in Dunkirk (posthumously we learned he took a noteworthy part). Two years ago on our honeymoon, we visited the 'House of Terror' in which the dungeons/gulag was preserved. My grandmother was enslaved by the Nazi regime. We're clear that the Nazi regime was something we are all better off without.We're just adding resolution to your broad black strokes (bad guys, period) on the white canvas, which as satisfying as they are to draw, does dehumanize the participants in the whole sorry affair. I get that you aren't ignorant of this of course, but you know, it's interesting to do and public words sometimes need additional commentary for some purpose.After all, though among the belligerents were the Nazi regime, we shouldn't forget that most of German fighters were fighting with just as noble intents as those they were fighting, as corrupted as they might have been. We were fighting the likes of Erwin Rommel, Georg Ferdinand Duckwitz and von Stauffenberg. Maybe even ranking Nazi Felix Steiner could escape the moniker of 'evil' or a 'bad guy', I probably wouldn't like him but that's the case for most high ranking military officers of the mid 20th Century I'd imagine.Again, I'm not trying to excuse or gloss over the horrors, nor am I accusing you of ignoring their are hues to the picture. We should salute the heroes, recorded and anonymous, regardless of which side manipulated them to what ends.

Hello Modulous, There is in Germany to this day a ongoing debate/argument on the extent the Wehrmacht had in perpetuating the holocaust. Many Germans would rather see the hands of their grandfathers and great grandfathers be clean.
Here is a link to a very controversial exhibit that toured Germany showing docmentation of the Wehrmacht participating in genocide. Wehrmacht exhibition - Wikipedia
Not harden SS, but ordinary German soldiers participating and being complicit.
As the last of the WWII participants and victims die so will the last witnesses.
We can never forget, we can never budge one inch no matter how comforting or popular the idea is of a clean wehrmacht. They were soldiers yes, they had orders, yes. They where manipulated, propagandized yes. But they participated and allowed the holocaust to happen. von Stauffenberg actually tried to do something about it. He and his movement and anyone in Europe who fought against the Natzis where imo heros.
So yeah we agree on that. Where we differ is I withold my salute.
I was a soldier so I can not fault another for doing his duty. However the US Army teaches us that there is such a thing as a unlawful order,
The military oath taken at the time of induction reads:I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me GodThe Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the lawful command of his superior officer, 891.ART.91 (2), the lawful order of a warrant officer, 892.ART.92 (1) the lawful general order, 892.ART.92 (2) lawful order. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

Yes, naturally. Like Tiger Force, for example or My Lai. When you have someone explicitly ordering it, and dissenters meeting sticky ends, I expect there was considerable atrocity caused by German soldiers. And ordered and coerced into service and obedience, yes. Which studies have shown, is quite normal human behaviour in certain contexts, even as we might 'never budge one inch' on the behaviour, I think it is unreasonable to hold no sympathy for the average man who had the misfortune to find themselves in perhaps some of those contexts. He also participated in the killing and enslavement of Poles. Again, heroes and villains is too black and white, and ultimately results in us missing the subtleties of human flavour, as bitter as it often is. Things such as the Enabling Act of 1933 call into question the very nature of lawful and unlawful orders as a distinction. Moral and immoral should be preferred, if only we could agree on that!

quote:

---

I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God

---

Hmmm. Oaths eh? Wasn't there some kind of Hitler oath?

quote:

---

I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath.

---

The American oath at WWII I believe was

quote:

---

I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army

---

Which would put them in the same kind of bind as the Germans if the rules insisted on atrocity. You know, if oaths are important. If this is relevant at all, it seems that you are justifying the actions of the German military.

What's up with the "t" in Nazi? That reminds me of those old comic books in which the Ratzi was used instead of "Nazi" apparently in some attempt not to offend.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi Modulous, Again this is case by case and I know you know this. I am not talking about the soldier on the front lines fighting. I am talking about the soldiers who are responsible for war crimes against unarmed jews. Rounding them up and shooting them, hanging them, chopping their heads off, gassing them, starving them.
Let me guess you think that because humans are predisposed under certain circumstances to conduct themselve in such a way that I should have some pity on those murderers? Sorry I am not able to do so. But there are heros and villians. The villians would be they guys in black and grey conducting genocide. The pungent waft of coke and burnt human remains was permeating the surrounding countryside. Did the Towns folk really not get a taste of this subtle flavor? Do we generations later retract our contempt and condemnation and replace it with understanding and pity that they surccumbed to the overwhelming need to annilate their own people. You know better than that. Edited by 1.61803, : spelling

grammer nazi.

You talk like these are always separate groups. In all wars soldiers commit horrid offences against unarmed civillians. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it...it's not that history repeats, but it rhymes....etc.Look, it's really easy to use narrative structures such as 'good vs evil' or 'heroes vs villains' colour our view of history. But history is not a scripted story, and refusing to budge I'm sure stands you up as a defender of Good and condemner of Evil in your own narrative, but at the cost of the truth. It's your choice, and you do have the ability to understand human atrocity more fully. Good guys and bad guys is only going to hamper your attempts to do so, even if you might (as I do) have strong feelings over what's right and wrong. I notice you avoid my evidence. The part where you characterised someone as a hero who participated in starting WWII, killing innocent people and enslaving them. Well not all of them. Germany is a huge place.Those that might have, let us assume they did. Then what? They couldn't single handedly overthrow the Nazi regime, and conspiring to do so was very dangerous as anybody could grass you up, and you and your family and your friends and people you spoke to in a bar...could all end up in one of those self-same camps. You know what you meant, I have to interpret.Are oaths important?
Do soldiers have duties and obligations to follow lawful orders?If so, you are justifying the German soldier's actions.
If not, why did you bring it up?

I think my views may be very similar to yours. War puts terrible pressures on men, placing them in unimaginable circumstances and facing them with unsolvable quandaries. It awakens dormant qualities, bringing out both the best and the worst. How many Nazi war criminals would have led quiet, nondescript and even laudable lives had Hitler never come to power?--Percy

True. I just watched a movie last night called The Eagle, which was a set in the time period of Roman occupancy of Britain after the construction of Hadrian's Wall. It was easy to see the Romans as the "good guys" - civilized, orderly, honorable, etc. and the peoples north of the wall as the "bad guys" - barbaric, ruthless, uncivilized, etc. It occurred to me, however, that the story could have as easily been told from the POV of the northern tribes that would have reversed the perceptions of "good guys" and "bad guys." It could have portrayed the Romans as the villains - taking land that didn't belong to them, driving out people that had lived there for centuries, killing the people because they were uncivilized, etc.Not trying to suggest that the Nazis were good by any stretch, but that type of rhetoric -'good vs evil' or 'heroes vs villains' - belongs in comic books, not history.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : clarification

Yes guys, every side has it's story. Every side thinks their side is the justified one. I get it.I too saw the Eagle. I too can see how the story can be told from one point of view making the other side out to be "the bad guys.I just do not see any German narrative doing that. There simply is no way the holocaust can be spun.I see the rational for not using lables, however this is one instance that is imo the exception to the rule.I agree with much you all say, but I still think the German Reich was the bad guys. They did bad things and had bad policies for bad reasons. We have the luxury of time and comfort to look back on and reason about it. I doubt any of you would feel the same way if you where a Jewish person living in Germany in the early forties.Edited by 1.61803, : added person

Understandable. They committed one of the worst instances of attempted genocide in recorded history, and that's only the start.Still, I think I get the point too. Nothing happens without a reason for it to happen, however bad that reason is. Thus, nobody perpetrates these horrible crimes without thinking that it is the best course available to them. It's one of the oldest rules in the universe, I think.Edited by TryingToBeLogical, : No reason given.

Hello again Modulous. Oaths are important to some people.
I took a oath when I joined the Army. I took a oath when I got married. Will I break my word? Will taking a oath keep me from breaking my word? Or am I just a stand up guy who would do the right thing regardless? I dont know. I personally do not need a oath to keep me from doing evil or even from doing what I believe is right. I am a good guy. I believe so. A army can not function if folks do what they want and not follow orders. I am not justifying the German soldiers actions. I know it is easy to say, what one would do in a given circumstance, but I honestly tell you now that if my superior officer told me to shoot or hang innocent non combatants I would have to face the consequences of my insubordination and be punished. I realize your point Modulous.
Do you realize mine? Is anyone justified to reduce the German Military and the Natzis as "the bad guys" in WWII? Or are we now to intellectually evolved for such lables. I am indeed a cold war relic.

Hello and welcome, Is your point?
A militant fascist government is somehow justified in conducting genocide for the purpose of racial purity because they believe it is in their best interest? Do we withold our judgement? Do we not condemn it? Or do we just say, oh well shit happens.

Not what I meant. I just meant that it's (unfortunately) the way of things for everything to act on its own beliefs, opinions, instincts, and laws. Nobody does anything without believing it justified, even if he or she realizes it is not later. This is why we act, because even if only to us, it's justified. This doesn't change the principles of basic human morality, it's just an explanation for why there are people who act out at all.

A democratic government is somehow justified in conducting a nuclear first strike because they believe it is in their best interest? I do, even though it was the "good guys" who did it.Edited by ringo, : Inserted missing word.