Quote:
Originally Posted by Skybird
The words I used, were responsibility for one's own obedience.
Yes, that is true for every single soldier in the German army in that war. And all other soldiers in all other armies in that and all other wars, from WWII over Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. That has many aspects and nuances, and factors increasing and relativising the amount of guilt. But the principle remain true: you are responsible for your obedience. May it be regarding a command. Ma yit be regarding loyalty to a person, commander, president, government, nation.
It is you deciding whether to comply with the situation you are in, or to refuse to do so. Consequences of your choice will be like this or like that, may even cost you your life. But still: you are responsible for your obedience. If not you - who else would it be? You choose the decision to comply with orders or not, to follow leaders or not, to believe what's being told you or not.
One could think of it as karma, too.
During the Nurmeberg trials, quite some of the accused argued that they just followed orders. Still the court thought that by that they were responsible for the consequences of their obedience.
You have noted probably that in thread son election and why I say people should not vote, the same issue appears. Because people are repsmsible for the leaders they legitimise by voting, the system they legitimise by voting, the lies they allow to be taken for argument when voting for the liars. You not only can choose to vote or not to vote - you are responsible for your choice.
If you want to avoid responsibility and want to be totally free, you need to live on an empty planet where there is just you alone.
|
Well, this is true, "I was just following orders" has been used for lots of excuses for vile acts. The trouble occurs when you boil it down to self-preservation. In a regime where disobedience equals death, do you disregard self-preservation and seek death for your morals or do you avoid death by being obedient? Heroes certainly would put morals before self-preservation, and many did, but many of us, and I'd would count myself as amongst them, would not have that strength of character to take your moral beliefs to your grave with you.
There are ways and means to disobey the regime without being obvious about it, and many Germans did in some form or another, from listening to foreign radios all the way up to hiding Jews, what manner of disobedience is greater? Both would put you in severe trouble if you were found out, but that didn't stop many from doing so, and some from dying whilst doing so.
What didn't help matters was the old Prussian mentality which had gotten Germany through the early 20th century, that "my country, right or wrong" sort of nationalism which meant that they may not have approved of Hitlers methods, but he was the leader and they fought for him as an extension of fighting for Germany, powerful propaganda helped that, and I think we've all been taken in by propaganda at least once in our lives, usually through negative stereotypes enforced by propaganda.
Personally I don't hold Germans responsible for the war, if anything I hold Britain, France and America responsible for creating the conditions that allowed Hitler to rise to power through the Treaty of Versailles, but that's another matter entirely. People like the thugs of the SS, their actions are unforgivable, but you get people like that in all sides in war, those that will take things too far, that will cross the line. Is that true war? When the SS lock the people of a village up in a church and set it on fire, they are preventing the working populace from falling into enemy hands and providing resources for them, so does that make it right? When the Japanese slaughtered POWs or worked them to death, they are denying the enemy from reinforcing themselves if the POWs are recaptured, is that right? Both examples are, by the modern laws of war, completely unacceptable, however every wartime atrocity can be given a military excuse which makes it viable.