Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   Pilot's Lounge (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=205)
-   -   Bomber boys - bbc one (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=29547)

csThor 02-09-2012 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 389118)
While agreeing that there is some truth in the 'history is written by the winners' idea, I wonder if it is perhaps a little too simple and dismissive of other factors. To accept it you need to believe that there is no real moral sense in the world - that all morality is relative and a construction of particular cultures. You rightly say above that from our modern perspective Nazi Germany is viewed as beyond the pale morally, but it's the conclusion that if they had won we would now all view their actions as heroic and right that I want to question.

My own position (maybe unfashionable these days) is that there is a natural and deep moral sense in people that finds certain actions repugnant and indefensible. There is evidence for this in Nazi Germany - how many amongst the general German populace knew what was being done in Belsen or Auschwitz? When a regime chooses certain extreme actions it can typically only carry them through by either concealing them from the bulk of their own people, by using lies and disinformation, or by terrorising large segments of the population into complicity.

In my understanding one of the reasons for the construction of the 'industrial scale' extermination camps was the unforeseen psychological toll on the members of the SS death squads in Soviet Russia. Even amongst the most polically-committed members of the regime close-up exposure to slaughter on that scale had psychological consequences that proved difficult to sustain.

Many ordinary German citizens felt moral repugnance towards the Nazis at the time. Many chose active resistance and paid for it with their lives.

Surely the main idea in 'Fatherland' is exactly about this natural, moral 'reality' breaking through the massive repression that would be needed by the victorious regime to sustain their image as heroic, just, winners.

Given the above I would suggest that if the Nazis had won they would not have been able to sustain the 'fiction' of their justness or rightness because inevitably truth would prevail. Tyrannies ultimately colapse because in time their actions prove to be out of alignment with the deep needs of their own people.

Then how do we explain people like Reinhard Heydrich? How can we square the essentially two persons in one body: the loving father and husband, the lover of classic music and gifted violinist vs the ice-cold planner and executor of the Holocaust? How do we explain the involvement of so many utterly respectable people in key positions of the Holocaust (like the engineers who designed and built the camps - who did not question their orders and kept working despite any kind of misgivings they may have had)? How do we explain the trainload of ordinary people working as informants for the secret service in pretty much any kind of totalitarian society (see NKVD, see Gestapo, see Stasi, etc etc)?

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. :-|

kendo65 02-09-2012 02:59 PM

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?

Sternjaeger II 02-09-2012 02:59 PM

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 :?

csThor 02-09-2012 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 389123)
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?

I don't think we will ever know. I guess there was at least a sense of something dark happening, but in a state like nationalsocialist Germany one didn't ask too many questions.

RCAF_FB_Orville 02-09-2012 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II (Post 389124)
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 :?

Whilst I'd wholeheartedly agree that the treatment of Turing was abhorrent, it was also actually the absolute norm in the majority of countries worldwide for Homosexuality to be a criminal offence, based upon 'Christian Morality' in the West of course. A few exceptions like Iceland, Poland, and Italy (who have always to their credit been amenable to and non judgmental on the issue of 'Man-Love' lol, dating back to Antiquity.)

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.

RCAF_FB_Orville 02-09-2012 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 389123)
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?

Regarding the question of the complicity or otherwise of the German population, its still the subject of historiographical inquiry. The consensus appears to be that the majority of civilians were aware of atrocities being committed, though not entirely aware of the Wansee conference and the official doctrine and policy of the 'Final Solution' and the precise details of the death camps. They were certainly aware of the forced removal of 'undesirables' to concentration camps and enforced/slave labour, and actively and extensively involved in its facilitation and prosecution.

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.

Sternjaeger II 02-09-2012 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville (Post 389141)
Whilst I'd wholeheartedly agree that the treatment of Turing was abhorrent, it was also actually the absolute norm in the majority of countries worldwide for Homosexuality to be a criminal offence, based upon 'Christian Morality' in the West of course. A few exceptions like Iceland, Poland, and Italy (who have always to their credit been amenable to and non judgmental on the issue of 'Man-Love' lol, dating back to Antiquity.)

yeah, my point is that countries that judged other as criminal for their persecutions didn't consider themselves as such for their own persecutions.

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:

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.
..it's still abhorrent, and a form of persecution.
Quote:

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.
Yeah, I like Graham Norton too, not as good as Jonathan Ross though ;)

RCAF_FB_Orville 02-09-2012 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II (Post 389172)
yeah, my point is that countries that judged other as criminal for their persecutions didn't consider themselves as such for their own persecutions.

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..


..it's still abhorrent, and a form of persecution.


Yeah, I like Graham Norton too, not as good as Jonathan Ross though ;)


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.

kendo65 02-09-2012 09:44 PM

'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:

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville (Post 389155)
...
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.
...

I had thought of those experiments and what they say about the pliability of the 'ordinary' person when I was writing the above. Establishing the 'right' conditions of deference to authority and unquestioning obedience was obviously a key facet of the Nazi regime.

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!)

ATAG_Snapper 02-09-2012 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 389208)
'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 had thought of those experiments and what they say about the pliability of the 'ordinary' person when I was writing the above. Establishing the 'right' conditions of deference to authority and unquestioning obedience was obviously a key facet of the Nazi regime.

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!)

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
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.