![]() |
Quote:
The way I see it there is an animalistic streak of ruthlessness in most of us which pertains to one's own advancement. It is weaker in some, stronger in others ... and it is the perfect tool for dictatorships not only to detect opposition within but also to push its own more drastic projects by offering economical and social benefits for those who do this dirty work. :-| |
A reply to (and maybe criticism of !) my own post.
I may have a naive impression of the German populace in WW2 as being unaware of the scale of the slaughter being perpetrated on the Jews? (I realise that there was obvious awareness of the discrimination and removal of Jews from daily life (ghettoisation, etc). I think there may be differing opinions amongst historians on how actively involved the general populace was. Indifference, ignorance or fear-driven inaction versus general complicity? Question to those in the know - which of the above is closer to the truth? (the above was written before, but posted after CSThor's response ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regarding Heydrich and specific individuals - there will always be particular people with combinations of sociopathic or psychopathic personality traits, and extreme political views that will allow them to balance and reconcile brutality towards chosen targets with civic duty and normal family activities. My argument above largely stands or falls on the reasons why the Nazis were able to get away with it. Ie how many people like Heydrich, Hitler does it take to pull a whole society along behind them? Obviously not everyone is complicit. How many then need to keep quiet and just follow orders? What happens to those who oppose but feel powerless to intervene? I suspect some of the above questions could be applied to some Allied airmen who may have had deep misgivings about what they were doing to German cities. I was struck in the Bomber TV programme by the crewman who cracked up during a mission. 'Lack of moral fibre'. One expressed reservations but justified his participation with 'They started it'. That's not meant as a criticism of the individuals, more a comment on the near-impossibilty of maintaining any kind of normal judgement of behaviour in such an extreme situation as a war. How much personal responsibilty do ordinary individuals carry when they are basically 'caught' in situations of deep powerlessness with few or no ways out? |
CsThor, I'm sure you heard the name Alan Turing, one of the key men for the victory in WW2 and condemned in 1952 for homosexuality (because it was considered a crime) and accepting the chemical castration by the very same country that fought against the horrors of Nazism..
As you said, unfortunately it's all relative :? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Turing was not forced to 'accept chemical castration' he voluntarily chose it rather than face a years imprisonment.....which is quite distinct to people being rounded up and executed/gassed/liquidated/murdered for being gay; there is no 'relativism' to speak of, if a comparison is being drawn this amounts to equivocation. Thankfully we live in more enlightened times these days and even have people like Graham Norton on the telly! Good show. Can't stand Julian Clary though, nothing to do with him being gay (doesn't bother me one bit)....He's just not funny lol. |
Quote:
An Oxford University Historian named Robert Gallatley conducted thorough and respected research into German media both prior to and during the war, drawing the conclusion that there was '"substantial consent and active participation of large numbers of ordinary Germans" in the prosecution of the Holocaust, though he saw no evidence for majority awareness of the precise details. This has not gone unchallenged however, and the debate continues. I am of the opinion that what happened in Germany could have most certainly happened anywhere, given the same conflagration of circumstance and variables. To suggest (as some idiots do) that the German people were somehow inherently 'evil' or existed in some kind of personal moral vacuum is patently ludicrous. This is of course clearly evidenced by those who chose bravely to resist (albeit a minority). What it did unfortunately illustrate is what Humanity is capable of, and particularly the insidious and all pervasive effect of a Fascist states propaganda machine upon a populace. The psychological phenomena of 'herding' has been posited as a possible explanation, and experiments like the 'Stanford prison experiment' *and the 'Milgram experiment' clearly illustrate how otherwise 'normal' people can behave when told to do unspeakable things by what they perceive to be an 'authority' figure. The cult of personality was nurtured and used to great effect by the Nazis, and was a powerful force indeed. |
Quote:
As per Italy, although there was no law as such, people had to face mockery and social discrimination anyway, and it's still quite strong in Italy and Spain today, again mainly because of the darn catholic church.. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
yeah, my point is that countries that judged other as criminal for their persecutions didn't consider themselves as such for their own persecutions. Right. Because at that time, it was de facto not criminal, it was the letter of the law, almost worldwide. Yet almost universal worldwide state persecution of or sanction of Homosexuality by imprisonment is not the same as outright murder without trial and due process of law for the supposed 'crime' of being gay, or even suspicion of being so. There is no 'moral equivalence' whatsoever, and it seemed as though an attempt was being made to make one. At the time, and of course wrongly, homosexuality was by a Judeo-Christian inspired, almost universally followed though erroneous 'Ethical standard' considered a crime. Britain was by no means alone in this (as you have noted, though I'm not sure why Britain was singled out), in fact it was as previously stated the worldwide norm. Murdering gay people or suspected gay people outright was absolutely not. Point being, the world at large was 'guilty' of the persecution of gay people (not specifically Britain as you have acknowledged )....agreed. What the world was not guilty of was their systematic, wholesale execution, and attempted absolute eradication. Quite different things, I'm sure you'll agree. Does this make me 'guilty' of 'moral relativism'? Absolutely, unashamedly and gladly. Most people are....and I stand by it. :) Thankfully, I'm not alone. Millions of people from many nations happened to agree with me and took up arms to defeat Nazism. A good thing, I'm sure we can both agree on. 'Relatively speaking'. ;) BTW Stern that amounts to partial agreement that some things are indeed relative, as you stated. I do believe however that the case of Turing and Nazi policy against gays are not comparable at all, in terms of being equally 'immoral'. That is a 'value judgment', not an 'absolute truth', which happily the vast majority of people share. There is no such thing as an 'absolute universal morality', I wish there was. |
'how many people like Heydrich, Hitler does it take to pull a whole society along behind them? Obviously not everyone is complicit. How many then need to keep quiet and just follow orders? What happens to those who oppose but feel powerless to intervene?'
Quote:
Nonetheless there were those in the Milgram / Stanford experiments who refused to comply, just as there were those in Germany. For those individuals is it a deeper commitment to an inner moral sense that leads them to refuse to comply even in the face of threats and possible danger? And at any time in any country are the greater mass of the population always just 'following orders' from their perceived superiors? Just that in most cases the orders are comparatively mundane and benign. (Personally I don't like Graham Norton. I used to like him for his role in Father Ted. I changed my mind when I realised that it wasn't great acting, but that he actually was as annoying as that in real life too!) |
Quote:
Edmund Burke Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797) |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.