German film looks at ties between Rommel and Hitler

[Gerald]

Erwin Rommel (foreground) is played by Ulrich Tukur in the new film.

A new film about Erwin Rommel has been shown on German television, depicting the general as a weak man undone by his links to Adolf Hitler.

Dubbed the "Desert Fox" when he fought the Allies in North Africa during World War II, he was admired by enemies for his skills on the battlefield.

He finally killed himself, under pressure from the Nazi leader, who suspected him of taking part in a plot.But the TV film questions depictions of Rommel as a tragic anti-Nazi hero.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20180010


Note: 2 November 2012 Last updated at 12:16 GMT

[Skybird]

I have seen the film.

Ulrich Tukur is a well-known theatre and movie actor in Germany. He played Rommel, and not badly so. Other roles also had good actors, especially the Generals von Kluge and Speidel took my attention. The acting by Hitler was not good. But that has been remarked in German media as well.

The film sowed only the past weeks of Rommel, and left out all the African glory-catching. At that phase of the war, when Rommel took over the defence of the defence lines at the channel, most Wehrmacht generals knew that the war was lost, and wanted to negotiate a peace in the west in order to focus on the war in the East, which illustrates their irrationality nicely. They allowed to get paralysed by their perceived obligation to obey and stay loyal to the Fuhrer, even if they dispised him. The movie opened with a line by Hanna Arend, which says all that is to be said about this idiotic understanding of loyalty "no matter what what":

We are responsible for our obedience.

The film depicts Rommel as both a victim of situational circumstances beyond his control (regarding why after failed Valkyre his name appeared in the crosshair of investigators), and a naive man who until the end puts loyalty and military codex to obey above reason and own responsibility. He even does not resist at the very end, which would have been a sign of rebellion. Desperate and knowing of the war's end he was. But he drew no consequences, like so many others. When being contacted by the group around Stauffenberg, the film shows a man who seriously considered it possible to get rid of Hitler without needing to kill him.

One should know that the anglosaxon and the German view and perception of Rommel could not be any more different. In America and Britain, he seems to be perceived as a noble knight who deserved respect for both his military competence and the fair treatement of prisoners that his army took in africa. Comfortably one seems to leave it to this perception. In Germany, however, the question on his responsibility of having helped the Nazi regime by his successes, and his naivety and bvlind obedience and loyalty, gets asked much louder than in overseas. I cannot help but remind of another quote by Hanna Arend: "In politics, obedience is active support."

Personally, I see Rommel as politically naive (which many professional militaries seem to be until today, maybe in an effort to justify to their consciousness the object of the profession they have chosen), and militarily obviously competent. He may not have been a Nazi and may not even have liked the Nazis - but by his deeds and his loyalty, he supported their murderous cause. This is what also must be reminded of when talking about Rommel.

I once alked with a historian, who said sometign interesting with which I tend to agree. He said the Americans demonise the Japanese for their "honourless" attack at Pearl Harbour until today becaseu by doing so they can gloss over the fact that the militarily allowed to get sacked and spanked on their bare bottoms by their very own fault. Compatravble to that, the Brits maye glorify Rommel even until today and admire him so much becasue intially he delivered the Allies so severe a spanking. -. And if you get spanked and kicked around, then at least you want to say that you where overwheömed by either a giant three m eters high who brought his big brothers with him, or you turn him into a glorious hero who is of a knighthood that dserves respect even when getting defeated. This might explain why the views of Rommel in Germany and Anglosaxonistan are so very different.

Well. I do not have what it takes to understand such sentiments, it seems. In a war movie on the air battles in WWI (Was it "Der blaue Max?"), there comes this American pilot who is much more to my taste: He arrives in a British squadron and cannot believe how much admiration the English pilots pay to the skill and noble attitude of the Germans - who at that time shot them out of the sky at will. Not respecting these perverted rules of gentleman'S war and fair sportsmanship, he plays dirty and kicks the Germans between the legs at every opportunity. The Brits are shocked, and displeased, whole he wins air duels and kills German pilots. Less Brits get killed, the balance shifts, the Germans lose their dominance. That American pilot knew much more about what counts in war, than all his British colleagues together.

In the end, Rommel may have been a noble man or not, but he was naive, and he definitely played for the wrong team. And by wrong I do not mean just "loosing team", but I mean the moral side of the whole mess that the Nazi regime was. If Wehrmacht generals would have rebelled against Hitler and his regime and would have taken out, both Germany and Europe would have been saved from many more millions of people getting killed and cities destroyed. For not having helped in trying to achieve that, Rommel does not deserve the respect that is being payed to him in other countries.

We are responsible for our obedience. Back then. And in wars of today.

[Oberon]

I agree and disagree with you Skybird.
Rommel was a shrewd tactician, but perhaps not the godlike figure that some people paint him to be, he was impatient, hard to work with, and prone to overextend himself at times. A good example of this was the dash to the coast, where he smashed through French lines, kept going without contacting his superiors and was written off as killed in action, it was only when he ran out of fuel and radioed in that they realised he was still alive and then they had to arrange for a supply train to meet him. Rommel may have obeyed the state, but he struggled to obey the High Command, and even some of Hitlers orders were negotiated around, such as commands to execute commandos, Jewish soldiers or civilians.
But he was far from perfect, far too brash, too aggressive, and his biggest weakness was logistics, and his own ego.

In regards to your comments on guilt through compliance, does that count for every single German soldier, airman or sailor who served the Reich in the war?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

In regards to your comments on guilt through compliance, does that count for every single German soldier, airman or sailor who served the Reich in the war?

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.

[mookiemookie]

Wow....the physical resemblance is impressive.

[Oberon]

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.

[August]

As I understand it Rommel only agreed to suicide in order to protect his family from retribution, so his reasons for cooperating in his death were somewhat more practical than meekness or loyalty to the state.

If he'd have demanded a trial he would still have been executed but so would his wife and son.

[Skybird]

August,

Rommel was a people's hero and he was also told that due to that circumstance one would be willing to not put him on trial, in order to save the public image. Seen that way, Rommel may also have agreed in order to leave the image - or illusion - intact. I think the public and the family motive both played a role.

Oberon,

you are right and I agree with what you say, and still - you took note that in your first asnwers you talked of "guilt and compliance", and I immediately corrected that and reminded you that I called it "responsibility and obedience". It is not always easy to fully see what long-range consequences our decisions and actions have or have not, and by becoming a reality what new new consequences this might trigger. And the amount of moral guilt one has to accept for being obedient, gets heavier or lighter due to the individual characteristics and variables the person is in. For the Germans, you could for example ask what would have happened if a majority of them would not have complied with the Nazis's rules, and would have revolted. I think that while most Nazis in Europe were Germans and Austrians, not all Germans and Austrians were Nazis. Believing Nazis probably only formed a minority, meaning: a group smaller than 50%, how many there actually were, we will never know. Maybe as little as 10% only. However, those accepting to nevertheless play ball and follow rules and look the other way, although they may not have been Nazis and may not have pulled a trigger still helped by that that the Nazis could secure their power. The silent majority that sat put and tolerated the darkness during the war, as well as those desperate workers before 39 who fell for the Nazi's paroles because Hitler indeed brought them back into work and put money and bread and butter on their home's kitchentables, have to accept that by doing so they made decisions that had effects - and that they share a responsibility for this.

We all need to make choices, almost everyday. And we are responsible for our decisions. Maybe I have a somewhat radical view there, put I stick to it: the freedom to chose between decisions, you always have. Maybe your choice will get you killed, but still, the choice is yours, and if your choice means you get killed, you have freedom that way, then.

On the German spirit that you summarised as "my nation, right or wrong", you still see that even in the wars of today, don't you, so it is not typically a German thing, nor was it exclusively in that era only.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Oberon,

you are right and I agree with what you say, and still - you took note that in your first asnwers you talked of "guilt and compliance", and I immediately corrected that and reminded you that I called it "responsibility and obedience". It is not always easy to fully see what long-range consequences our decisions and actions have or have not, and by becoming a reality what new new consequences this might trigger. And the amount of moral guilt one has to accept for being obedient, gets heavier or lighter due to the individual characteristics and variables the person is in. For the Germans, you could for example ask what would have happened if a majority of them would not have complied with the Nazis's rules, and would have revolted. I think that while most Nazis in Europe were Germans and Austrians, not all Germans and Austrians were Nazis. Believing Nazis probably only formed a minority, meaning: a group smaller than 50%, how many there actually were, we will never know. Maybe as little as 10% only. However, those accepting to nevertheless play ball and follow rules and look the other way, although they may not have been Nazis and may not have pulled a trigger still helped by that that the Nazis could secure their power. The silent majority that sat put and tolerated the darkness during the war, as well as those desperate workers before 39 who fell for the Nazi's paroles because Hitler indeed brought them back into work and put money and bread and butter on their home's kitchentables, have to accept that by doing so they made decisions that had effects - and that they share a responsibility for this.

We all need to make choices, almost everyday. And we are responsible for our decisions. Maybe I have a somewhat radical view there, put I stick to it: the freedom to chose between decisions, you always have. Maybe your choice will get you killed, but still, the choice is yours, and if your choice means you get killed, you have freedom that way, then.

On the German spirit that you summarised as "my nation, right or wrong", you still see that even in the wars of today, don't you, so it is not typically a German thing, nor was it exclusively in that era only.

I see where you're coming from, and I think that was where the Nazis were at their most devious, if the German people had seen them in the full light of day at the start, they'd have struggled to get into power, but as it was it was clever propaganda and machinations that presented the German people (and Austrian for that matter) with...dare I say it...'Hope' and 'Change' which are perhaps two of the more powerful words in the English language when it comes to motivating a populace. They promised a lot, and even delivered some of it, fancy schemes such as 'Kraft der Freude', the HJ, the Autobahns, which in hindsight are recognisable as either military preparation or bread and circuses, but at the time were gifts from a regime which, if you weren't politically minded and didn't fall into one of the undesirable categories, gave you a job, gave you money and gave you hope for a better future for a Germany which had been crushed in WWI, betrayed by its bureaucracy and buried under a decade of mismanagement and corruption. With all that glittering promise, it's little wonder that Hitler was, to many, the best thing since sliced bread (which was now affordable without having to use a wheelbarrow of paper notes).
It's only with hindsight that we hold those people responsible for making a wrong decision, if the Nazis had won the war, then this conversation would be completely different.

But I do see where you're coming from, and it's not that radical a view, the concept of free will dove-tails nicely into having a responsibility for ones decisions, however the concept does not always work equally across the board, sometimes things occur that are not intended consequences of your actions. For example, if you were to walk down a street at night and be mugged, would you hold responsibility for walking down that street at night? Certainly there are actions one can take to limit such occurrences, for example if the street is a known trouble spot, don't walk down it at night, or better still avoid it altogether.
The concept also breaks down when it encounters another common human occurrence, deceit, certainly most common in politics. For example, do the people who voted for Tony Blair and the Labour Party in the 2001 election take responsibility for the Prime Ministers decision to invade Iraq alongside the United States in 2003? It was not a stated goal of the PM to do so, in fact, in June 2001 few could have foreseen the events of a few months later and the results that they would have on the world.
If a person lies to you, and you believe them, do you take responsibility for believing them?

Oh, and don't worry, I don't believe for a second that the mentality of 'my country right or wrong' is limited to just Germany of that era, it is a founding principle of nationalism and jingoism that's been all around the world since the dawn of the nation state.

In conclusion, I do understand where you're coming from, and agree, but it's a hard concept to put across the board on a planet with so many variables, but if people did take more responsibility for their actions instead of blaming it solely on others, well...this world would be quite a different place, wouldn't it?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

the Autobahns

Wait a moment there. It is a great myth that the Nazis "invented " the Autobahn, or that the Autobahn program helped to massively battle mass unemployment. The idea for building specialized high-speed streets reserved for car traffic exclusively was introduced already in 1924 or 25 in Frankfurt, an organisation was founded to boost that idea and get that project started. And the building of just more of the same had a minor impact on the unemployment only. Ober 6 million workers had no jobs, but the autobahn projects of the Nazis bound only around 125 thousand workers, and maybe another 125 thousand at max in attached business companies who delivered the material. It was a propaganda coup in the main, because to the wide public the Autobahnen were sold as "the Führer's roads". At the same time the working conditions were extremely primitive even for the conditions of that time, machinery was rarely used, for the most it was all done by worker's hand, with shovels.

The Autobahnen and the Führer, that is a long-living story of myth and misperception.

It's only with hindsight that we hold those people responsible for making a wrong decision, if the Nazis had won the war, then this conversation would be completely different.

I think you mix up the moral guilt aspect and the aspect of technical responsibility, in a causal understanding, too easily. Keep both more separate, but linked. Decisions you form on the basis of knowledge that you have and deal with, or that you ignore. Basing on indeed misinformation or wrong data, is something different. However, one then must ask whether or not you share responsibility for not having better information, or having helped in establishing a mechanism that feeds you false information. And so on and on. If you get lied to by a person who before always spoke the truth, that is one thing. If you believe a person whom is known to be a notorious liar, that is something different.

But I do see where you're coming from, and it's not that radical a view, the concept of free will dove-tails nicely into having a responsibility for ones decisions, however the concept does not always work equally across the board, sometimes things occur that are not intended consequences of your actions. For example, if you were to walk down a street at night and be mugged, would you hold responsibility for walking down that street at night?

The quesiton you seem to ask is whether the victim is morally guilty of havign walked down a lon ely street at night!?

Certainly there are actions one can take to limit such occurrences, for example if the street is a known trouble spot, don't walk down it at night, or better still avoid it altogether.

However. I see that we get distracted here. The issue is "responsibility for your obedience". I remind of the other Hannah Arendt quote I gave: "In politics, loyalty is active support." Obedience implies you stay loyal to an authority you accept to rate above yourself in the power hierarchy. That it is more powerful in said hierarchy, must not necessarily mean it is right. You make a decision to comply with its claims for power, or not. You are obedient, or not. You either support it in its intentions, or you don't. You obey your general's order, or you don't. Both has consequences. Your choice on whether or not to comply, and the consequences that you knowingly accept by that, tell something about you. And here is where you can stay conform with to the authority's demand, you comply - and by that become morally guilty, not just responsible in a causal-technical manner. Obviously, conscience has a lot to do with it. And to me, my conscience is the highest authority to which I indeed owe justification for my decisions and actions. Not a deity. Not a general or president. Not a people electing me. Not my family and not my friends. But my conscience. If I am not in congruence with my conscience, then I'm in trouble. Do I allow to get bought? Do I comply with something my conscience protests over, because else my life is in danger? And how relates a decision for or against compliance with an external authority, to the thread that if I do not violate my conscience, other people, innocents, will suffer or die?

Tricky. And I am responsible for how I navigate through this labyrinth. Me. Nobody else. The external authority manipulating me and blackmailing me, just is what it is and does what it does,. How I face that challenge - that si what it is about.

The concept also breaks down when it encounters another common human occurrence, deceit, certainly most common in politics. For example, do the people who voted for Tony Blair and the Labour Party in the 2001 election take responsibility for the Prime Ministers decision to invade Iraq alongside the United States in 2003? It was not a stated goal of the PM to do so, in fact, in June 2001 few could have foreseen the events of a few months later and the results that they would have on the world.

If a person lies to you, and you believe them, do you take responsibility for believing them?

Technically, yes, but the moral guilt is reduced when you had no reason to not trust the other whose lies you believed. But in case of politicians I do argue - as you have noticed in other threads, I'm sure - that lies are part of their daily business ands manipulation of opinion is their profession. You are responsible for having believed somebody I would label as a known liar. And that is a moral guilt as well.

Oh, and don't worry, I don't believe for a second that the mentality of 'my country right or wrong' is limited to just Germany of that era, it is a founding principle of nationalism and jingoism that's been all around the world since the dawn of the nation state.

It's not just nationalism and extremism. Take the Western idealists in uniform who seriously believed their leaders who send them to Afghanistan or Iraq. Two weeks ago, I touched upon the naivety of German soldiers depicted in a German TV film I had a thread about. There is a certain kind of opportunistic gullibility amongst professional soldiers, especially those without too much experience. They indeed believe they go to Afghanistan to help build democracy. They indeed believed the lies told by Bush. You see, while seeing the good will of theirs, I also hold them responsible for their naivety - a naivety that maybe already starts with the decision to voluntarily join the army. To what degree a moral guilt results from that, again is a follow-on question depending on many variables.

In conclusion, I do understand where you're coming from, and agree, but it's a hard concept to put across the board on a planet with so many variables, but if people did take more responsibility for their actions instead of blaming it solely on others, well...this world would be quite a different place, wouldn't it?

Accepting responsibility for your decision and actions, can plot you a course into troubled seas, that is for certain. And before we have never faced existential challenges, we cannot claim with certainty what we would do in an extreme situation. We only can say what we hope we would be courageous and honest - may I say: noble? - enough to do or to decide. As long as we have not been in such a situation, we do not know for sure.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Wait a moment there. It is a great myth that the Nazis "invented " the Autobahn, or that the Autobahn program helped to massively battle mass unemployment. The idea for building specialized high-speed streets reserved for car traffic exclusively was introduced already in 1924 or 25 in Frankfurt, an organisation was founded to boost that idea and get that project started. And the building of just more of the same had a minor impact on the unemployment only. Ober 6 million workers had no jobs, but the autobahn projects of the Nazis bound only around 125 thousand workers, and maybe another 125 thousand at max in attached business companies who delivered the material. It was a propaganda coup in the main, because to the wide public the Autobahnen were sold as "the Führer's roads". At the same time the working conditions were extremely primitive even for the conditions of that time, machinery was rarely used, for the most it was all done by worker's hand, with shovels.

The Autobahnen and the Führer, that is a long-living story of myth and misperception.

Well, you learn something new every day, it just goes to show how pervasive the propaganda machine of the Reich was to have such myths continue to this day.

I think you mix up the moral guilt aspect and the aspect of technical responsibility, in a causal understanding, too easily. Keep both more separate, but linked. Decisions you form on the basis of knowledge that you have and deal with, or that you ignore. Basing on indeed misinformation or wrong data, is something different. However, one then must ask whether or not you share responsibility for not having better information, or having helped in establishing a mechanism that feeds you false information. And so on and on. If you get lied to by a person who before always spoke the truth, that is one thing. If you believe a person whom is known to be a notorious liar, that is something different.

Question, Question, always question, I think is the lesson to be learnt in many things, life in general. Sometimes though, human laziness strikes and we find it easier not to question in order to live a simple life. You see it a lot in people who couldn't tell you where Iran is on a map but won't miss an episode of the latest reality television show, ignorance is bliss as the old saying goes, but ignorance is also a trap, since eventually life has a funny habit of putting you in situations where your ignorance leads to a downfall.
Besides, as another saying goes, "If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?"
Sometimes though, even when given the truth, people chose to believe a lie because it either sounds better, or the truth itself is too terrible for them to behold. Be it conspiracy theorists who think that 9/11 was an inside job, or those who believed the propaganda machine of the Reich even as the Soviets marched on Berlin. The human mind sometimes just simply cannot input the information presented to it, sometimes that leads to death like rabbits trapped in headlights, or a complete psychological breakdown, or strict denial that it happened.
But that is straying a tad off course from our subject at hand, but I will refer back to a quote that someone had as their sig for a while, and I think (but I am not 100% sure) that you said it:

"We all, in life, sometimes ignore a truth in favour of a lie that sounds better."

The quesiton you seem to ask is whether the victim is morally guilty of havign walked down a lon ely street at night!?

I guess there is the fine line between what is morally responsible and what is common sense.

However. I see that we get distracted here. The issue is "responsibility for your obedience". I remind of the other Hannah Arendt quote I gave: "In politics, loyalty is active support." Obedience implies you stay loyal to an authority you accept to rate above yourself in the power hierarchy. That it is more powerful in said hierarchy, must not necessarily mean it is right. You make a decision to comply with its claims for power, or not. You are obedient, or not. You either support it in its intentions, or you don't. You obey your general's order, or you don't. Both has consequences. Your choice on whether or not to comply, and the consequences that you knowingly accept by that, tell something about you. And here is where you can stay conform with to the authority's demand, you comply - and by that become morally guilty, not just responsible in a causal-technical manner. Obviously, conscience has a lot to do with it. And to me, my conscience is the highest authority to which I indeed owe justification for my decisions and actions. Not a deity. Not a general or president. Not a people electing me. Not my family and not my friends. But my conscience. If I am not in congruence with my conscience, then I'm in trouble. Do I allow to get bought? Do I comply with something my conscience protests over, because else my life is in danger? And how relates a decision for or against compliance with an external authority, to the thread that if I do not violate my conscience, other people, innocents, will suffer or die?
Tricky. And I am responsible for how I navigate through this labyrinth. Me. Nobody else. The external authority manipulating me and blackmailing me, just is what it is and does what it does,. How I face that challenge - that si what it is about.

It is tricky indeed, and I think that it's something that's run down through society, and religion (sometimes) in history. Do you make the just decision, or the easy one? Often the answers are so vague that it's hard to know if you've made the right decision, rarely is it so simple that the consequences of your actions in either direction are spelled out to you beforehand since you cannot predict the future. Which leads you into the quandry of making the right choice.
I certainly don't disagree with you, when I say that it is your responsibility for navigating this labyrinth, just as it is mine to navigate my own, but sometimes, as they say, a burden shared is a burden halved, and sometimes you can seek advice as to what direction to take, but ultimately, you and only you can walk that path.

Technically, yes, but the moral guilt is reduced when you had no reason to not trust the other whose lies you believed. But in case of politicians I do argue - as you have noticed in other threads, I'm sure - that lies are part of their daily business ands manipulation of opinion is their profession. You are responsible for having believed somebody I would label as a known liar. And that is a moral guilt as well.

Lies certainly are part of the daily business of politicians, although I do ponder, as commented in another thread myself, in a quotation of a comment written by Neil deGrass Tyson on twitter, who has more of the responsibility. A politician will say what they think you want them to say. Are we the ones at fault for just wanting to hear what we want to hear from them? Certainly no politician has ever been praised for bad news, so again we come back to that decision, to take the difficult path and be honest (and probably never be re-elected) or to take the easiest path and lie, and as we both know, humanity is like water and electricity, it tends to take the path of least resistance.
However, I would argue a third factor in our viewpoint of politicians, and that's education. Does a person who is unaware of their ignorance bear the same moral guilt as someone who is aware of it? Personally, I would argue that they do not, as no one person can know all things in the universe, but the person who does know of their ignorance and yet chooses to remain so is counter to all of humanity which has constantly sought for answers.
If I really wanted to derail this thread, I could bring modern religion in at this point, but I think both of us have talked about that for long enough in this forum and I don't know if Neals bandwidth would like it if we started again.

It's not just nationalism and extremism. Take the Western idealists in uniform who seriously believed their leaders who send them to Afghanistan or Iraq. Two weeks ago, I touched upon the naivety of German soldiers depicted in a German TV film I had a thread about. There is a certain kind of opportunistic gullibility amongst professional soldiers, especially those without too much experience. They indeed believe they go to Afghanistan to help build democracy. They indeed believed the lies told by Bush. You see, while seeing the good will of theirs, I also hold them responsible for their naivety - a naivety that maybe already starts with the decision to voluntarily join the army. To what degree a moral guilt results from that, again is a follow-on question depending on many variables.

You will always get the rosy cheeked recruit who believes the poster and walks out to the battlefield ignorant of the nature of war. From the young teens of Flanders fields, to the lads who go to Afghanistan today. However, they soon learn different.
Joining the army, it's a difficult decision to morally make. Once upon a time it was a religious duty, then a national one, now with so many questions asked over the point of conflict, well, you can see the difference in the size of volunteer armies over the years in western nations.
Often these days it is a family matter, the father educates the son about his military experience and instills a desire in the son to emulate his father, be it for many reasons, for recognition, for self-pride, or for a sense of community. I am the first generation for about four or five generations in my family not to have been involved in any branch of the armed forces for any amount of time. However my upbringing instilled no desire in me to emulate my grandfather, but society and my sometimes 19th century way of thinking does put a small twinge of guilt in the back of my mind from time to time.
In regards to the soldiers who think that they are building 'democracy' in Afghanistan, I think that again boils back down to believing a less painful lie rather than the truth, it makes it easier for them to go back out there and come back again. A coping mechanism perhaps. However, I cannot ultimately decide or judge their mindset since I lack the necessary first hand experience to do so. Until I have walked in their shoes and experienced their upbringing, training and warzone tours, I do not aspire to judge them or their beliefs. Do I hold them responsible for their beliefs? In a non-accusationary manner, perhaps, only in so much as I hold you responsible for yours and myself for my own. When it comes to moral guilt, the emphasis placed upon it varies from man to man, some will live their lives as morally sound as possible, others will pay little heed to it.

Accepting responsibility for your decision and actions, can plot you a course into troubled seas, that is for certain. And before we have never faced existential challenges, we cannot claim with certainty what we would do in an extreme situation. We only can say what we hope we would be courageous and honest - may I say: noble? - enough to do or to decide. As long as we have not been in such a situation, we do not know for sure.

I cannot disagree at all, and these are wise words. Our hopes and our realities often have vast gulfs between them, but sometimes, just sometimes, we can excel ourselves and create such virtues of note, such great moral deeds, and at the same time such despicable acts.

Of course, what is morally right is another big question. What judges our ethics? Society? Religion? Our own personal decisions? What is right for me may be wrong for you...so who is right and who is wrong?

[Skybird]

I think your closing questions are of greater value if being left as they are, technically unanswered in this phase of our talking. Because that way they force everybody noting them to think himself, and always new. I tend to not believe in blueprints for answers to questions like this. What is the right thing to do in times of peace and civilised orders, jmight be the wrong thing to do in times of war and chaos, might even cause more chaos and "evil" then. I tend to see both times, peace and war, by totally different set of rules. Judging the one by standards used to describe the other, for me makes little sense. A pacifist might do that, and by doing so even refuses to fight against an obvious evil. a notorious militarist might do so as well, and by that even in times of peace threatens to impose rules basing on the logic of war, in the name of protecting freedom and peace. Seeing war by moral standards of peace, and seeing peace by the standards of war, does not seem to work. The killing I do in peace, is illegal and is a crime. The killing of the same person in war, is called legitimate, and "duty". I may even get rewarded for it. Context is all.

I have little to add or reply to what you said, I agree with too much of it and we seem to be not that much apart in our views on these things. And if we would start on religion again, Takeda's two heads probably would explode.

Thanks for a decent talk done! I appreciate that.

[Rockstar]

I too appreciate this talk it was an extremely interesting discussion. Truly it opened my eyes to something new.

I had no idea Takeda had two heads.

< Ba-dum-dum-tssshhh >

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by August

As I understand it Rommel only agreed to suicide in order to protect his family from retribution, so his reasons for cooperating in his death were somewhat more practical than meekness or loyalty to the state.

If he'd have demanded a trial he would still have been executed but so would his wife and son.

That was my understanding too but I'm amazed he accepted said reassurances.....not that he'd have had much choice.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I too appreciate this talk it was an extremely interesting discussion. Truly it opened my eyes to something new.

I had no idea Takeda had two heads.

< Ba-dum-dum-tssshhh >

Probably me me but I don't understand your reference to Takeda

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Thanks for a decent talk done! I appreciate that.

Likewise, I always enjoy our talks.