Bomber boys - bbc one

[csThor]

Originally Posted by kendo65

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

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

[RCAF_FB_Orville]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville

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..

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.