Am I wrong to respect the person in my avatar ... Heinz Guderian ?

[LightSpectra]

Again, I don't disagree, I'm just suggesting that there are nuances to this that Maimonides failed to acknowledge. Everything that you say, after all, is fundamentally true of any German soldier at that time; Guderian is distinguished only by the individual resistance which he may have potentially brought to bear, not the basic choice of whether or not to do so. He have been complicit in the crimes of the Third Reich, but he was not, as Maimonides appears to believe, responsible for them.

Individual German soldiers may not have been aware of the Holocaust or false pretenses for Hitler's wars of conquest; even so, I don't excuse them for anything, because there were civilians and low-ranking soldiers like Sophie Scroll and Joseph Ratzinger that were well aware of the moral errors of their government. It's a flimsy excuse, and it certainly doesn't hold any weight when we're talking about the people that individually planned unjustifiable wars of conquest like Manstein and Guderian.

Put simply, there would have been no Holocaust or World War II without (a) politicians like Hitler that ordered their underlings to do wicked things, and (b) soldiers or administrators like Guderian to execute them. They're both responsible in my eyes, though not equally.

 

[kiwitt]

Are you aware that Manstein promulgated orders to draconically torment Jews, independent of any command from Hitler or the OKH?

According to what I read in Wikipedia ... yes.

As I said in my opening post ... I respect individuals for their work product, and for generals, that means their military leadership skills. e.g. While not a "socialist", I also respected our previous Prime Minister for her leadership skills, but did not agree with her political viewpoints.

What I am trying to say is that to "respect" a person, you do not need to accept the all their beliefs and all the actions that particular individual has done.

Sheesh ... We even have to respect "murderers" somewhat, under our current laws, because we need to recognise even their basic human rights, when most of us would condemn them regardless.

Also, under your view the only person we can respect is "Jesus", as he did not sin. Everyone else is deserving of no respect because they have done bad acts, etc.

 

[LightSpectra]

As I said in my opening post ... I respect individuals for their work product, and for generals, that means their military leadership skills. e.g. While not a "socialist", I also respected our previous Prime Minister for her leadership skills, but did not agree with her political viewpoints.

What I am trying to say is that to "respect" a person, you do not need to accept the all their beliefs and all the actions that particular individual has done.

Do you not think there's a substantial difference between admiring somebody that has a differing political view, and admiring somebody that is partially responsible for the greatest atrocities in history?

If it were possible to completely separate Guderian the human being and Guderian the chessmaster, then there may be a point to be made here. There's not. I would certainly hope you would be outraged if my avatar was Hitler and I tried to argue that although I dislike his tendency towards conquest and genocide, I admire his ability to command road building.

Sheesh ... We even have to respect "murderers" somewhat, under our current laws, because we need to recognise even their basic human rights, when most of us would condemn them regardless.

Respecting somebody only insofar that they deserve it as a human being is a lot different from respecting somebody's accomplishments.

Also, under your view the only person we can respect is "Jesus", as he did not sin. Everyone else is deserving of no respect because they have done bad acts, etc.

In some respect, yes.

 

[kiwitt]

Do you not think there's a substantial difference between admiring somebody that has a differing political view, and admiring somebody that is partially responsible for the greatest atrocities in history?

I won't go into the atrocities as that will take this discussion way off-topic.

If we were to look analytically at all the orders Guderian and Manstein gave in the course of their lives and compared that to those orders that were wrong ethically and morally, you will find that the majority (if not nearly 99%) were related to application of military thought, principles and skills.

 

[LightSpectra]

If I'm spending 99.99999999% of my life doing things like paperwork or sleeping, does that excuse five minutes I might spend in murdering somebody?

Please address the argument that Guderian and Manstein knew or didn't care that what they were doing was wrong, but remained loyal to their regime, thus prolonging and exacerbating World War II and the Holocaust.

 

[kiwitt]

OK ... you may remember that all officers (and men) in Hitlers army had to swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler. And an oath is very important to military men of honor, and not one they would break easily. It is for this reason I suspect they upheld and acted on many of the orders and directions of Hitler.

You many also know that one of the ways officers motivated their men in the war against Russia, was not only to defend Germany, but also to stop the Communists from taking over the whole of Europe. i.e. if the German's did not fight so hard against the Russians, they would have very likely ended up in Holland, Belgium and even France somewhat. Europe would have been significantly different if that eventuated.

So it is very likely they were also loyal to not only Germany but to Western Civilisation. As to the atrocities and their involvement therein, I suspect, it was no where like the involvement of many others in the Germany.

 

[LightSpectra]

OK ... you may remember that all officers (and men) in Hitlers army had to swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler. And an oath is very important to military men of honor, and not one they would break easily. It is for this reason I suspect they upheld and acted on many of the orders and directions of Hitler.

Assuredly, but that's not an excuse by any means as I've already explained hitherto several times.

You many also know that one of the ways officers motivated their men in the war against Russia, was not only to defend Germany, but also to stop the Communists from taking over the whole of Europe. i.e. if the German's did not fight so hard against the Russians, they would have very likely ended up in Holland, Belgium and even France somewhat. Europe would have been significantly different if that eventuated.

I'll admit that this was the best motivation out of any potential ones, and that if there ever was a just reason to fight for the Nazi regime (or, in a lesser case, be a co-belligerent, such as Finland), this would be it. Furthermore, I cannot blame Guderian or Manstein for not having the foresight of knowing that their efforts would be counter-productive in that the Soviets ended up with more of Europe than they possibly could have in any other scenario because Germany started a war it wouldn't win. However, this example is only applicable to those soldiers that exclusively fought against the Soviet Union, such as volunteer Spanish units and Eastern European renegades. This isn't the case for Guderian and Manstein, who had a large part in planning and executing wars against France and Poland, which resulted in less resources being able to be directed against the Soviets.

In short: this is a conditional absolution which is not applicable to Guderian.

 

[kiwitt]

I don't think I have said I have absolved either Guderian or Manstein. However, their military skills do stand them apart from many lesser generals and leaders.

As I said above, I respect their military skills ... period. Their other acts, while obviously wrong, have no bearing on this respect I have for them. However, I have played wargames for many decades, so I am inclined have a this more "narrow" view of generals.

 

[LightSpectra]

Already rebutted that.

If it were possible to completely separate Guderian the human being and Guderian the chessmaster, then there may be a point to be made here. There's not. I would certainly hope you would be outraged if my avatar was Hitler and I tried to argue that although I dislike his tendency towards conquest and genocide, I admire his ability to command road building.

 

[kiwitt]

Just curious, I note that the person in your avatar and signature would not be much respected by me for the simple fact he committed adultery.

In 1885 Franz Joseph met Katharina Schratt, a leading actress of the Vienna stage, and she became his mistress. This relationship lasted the rest of his life, and was, to a certain degree, tolerated by Sisi. Franz Joseph built Villa Schratt in Bad Ischl for her, and also provided her with a small palace in Vienna.

Does the fact you have placed him in your avatar and signature mean that you respect him also ? or can you separate the Franz Joseph the human being and Franz Joseph the Emperor ?

 

[Atticus]

It's a bit weird to separate someone's skill in war from the morality of war.

It's like I'd respect Jack the Ripper for his skill in killing. He was phenomenal: Got away in very tight situations, and he cut people so good he was thought to be a doctor.

So it's wrong to fight in a war, but if you good at doing this thing that is wrong, then you deserve respect?

And just to remind, Germans weren't exactly nice to Soviets either. I remember someone saying they treated Russian PoWs worse than anyone.

 

[civ_king]

Just curious, I note that the person in your avatar and signature would not be much respected by me for the simple fact he committed adultery.Does the fact you have placed him in your avatar and signature mean that you respect him also ? or can you separate the Franz Joseph the human being and Franz Joseph the Emperor ?

I think he believes that adultery and participating in the deaths of hundreds of thousands-millions is very different

 

[holy king]

He fought for the glory of Germany, and later for the survival of it. That is what military leaders did back in the day.

jesus christ, what freaking glory of freaking germany are you referring to?

 

[LightSpectra]

Just curious, I note that the person in your avatar and signature would not be much respected by me for the simple fact he committed adultery.

No disagreement from me there.

Does the fact you have placed him in your avatar and signature mean that you respect him also ? or can you separate the Franz Joseph the human being and Franz Joseph the Emperor ?

I'm not separating anything about him. He was a decent human being (albeit imperfect) and a decent emperor (albeit imperfect), and if I thought either were untrue, I would not respect him.

Apparently you think there's no substantial difference between being a sinner and participating in the greatest atrocities in history.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And an oath is very important to military men of honor, and not one they would break easily And an oath is very important to military men of honor, and not one they would break easily. It is for this reason I suspect they upheld and acted on many of the orders and directions of Hitler.

He also swore an oath to the Constitution of the Wiemar republic. One that was very quickly forgotten.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

True duty is to goodness, not to regimes. There would've been no Holocaust or World War II if Germans didn't feel as if it were their duty to be loyal to Hitler. In fact, the word "duty" becomes utterly meaningless if it can legitimately be used to justify fighting for such wicked causes in the same way it can be used to justify fighting for justice.

So duty is only a true duty of which you like the outcome? How convenient... In my opinion that something good can very well lead to something bad is a fact of life. If it becomes utterly meaningless by this, well then I guess there is no meaning in good.

No, it was Stauffenberg and the White Rose students that fought for the glory of Germany, not Guderian or Manstein.

Yeah, and if Germany had won, suddenly Guderian or Manstein would have fought for the glory, right?

And look how much glory it brought you...

This reply demonstrates nicely that you didn't understand a word of what I was saying.

jesus christ, what freaking glory of freaking germany are you referring to?

The glory of being the strongest and hence most awesome. It's really simple.

 

[innonimatu]

I'll admit that this was the best motivation out of any potential ones, and that if there ever was a just reason to fight for the Nazi regime (or, in a lesser case, be a co-belligerent, such as Finland), this would be it.

So, basically, you disapprove of them when they do things you don't like, and approve when they do things you like. And then you claim that what you approve of is moral, what you don't is immoral. You have as much right as anyone else to pass judgment, of course.

@kiwitt: it's as bad or as good a thing to admire Guderian as a military commander as to Admire Patton, Zhukov, Genghis Khan, Caesar, or any other. If we're talking about military skill, the only valid objection would be if you admired an incompetent. Just ignore the self-appointed moral policemen, they are no better than you to judge.

 

[Atticus]

@Sill:

If you're saying what I think you're saying, I'm very proud not to understand it.

To me there's much more glory and honor in saving people's lives than in duty, promises, or the size of your political entity.

 

[innonimatu]

It's a bit weird to separate someone's skill in war from the morality of war.

It's like I'd respect Jack the Ripper for his skill in killing. He was phenomenal: Got away in very tight situations, and he cut people so good he was thought to be a doctor.

So it's wrong to fight in a war, but if you good at doing this thing that is wrong, then you deserve respect?

The problem with the morality of war is that the victor decides on that. I'm not complaining about that, mind you. What I argue is that morality is hard to evaluate, while military competence is far less controversial. Need I remind that the Allies also did they share of massacring during WW2? That as the war came to an end, it was a race for grabbing as much as either (soviets and americans and british) of the allies could?

If our "christian" morality (which condemns murder and violence as a tool for domination), is to be bough into war, then any general will be condemned. Their very job involves pushing their own soldiers into likely death, often deliberately sacrificing them as pieces in a strategic game in order to gain some advantage, all the while white trying to get enemies killed in a sufficient scale to cause them to submit to the victor. It seems to me that the "clean" televised wars such as the latest one in Iraq has deceived viewers into believing that this isn't so, just because the enemies in these new wars are outgunned to a degree which didn't happen in WW2, surrender much more readily, and the TV doesn't show their dead... Easy to criticize just some old generals compared to the apparently "clean" modern ones. But no, they're very much alike.
Ever since Augustine of Hippo christians have been trying to reconcile christian morals with war - and failing, as the continuation of the controversy shows. The problem is intractable. Condemn all war if you will, that at least would be a coherent position.

 

[Atticus]

I kinda do condemn all war.

Well, it's of course way longer to explain: I try not to condemn people, and war might on occasion be like "killing a rabid dog", to quote Gandhi, in which case it could be justified (it would also require that the killers of the rabid dog are voluntary, there are no other means, no unnecessary violence and so on).