Admittedly I did simplify my meaning but I will say flat out I don’t support the notion there is “always a choice.” It’s been proven too many times that one can be placed in situations be it in warfare or civilian life where you have none. THAT I speak from personal experience…it has zero to do with relativism. It’s very simple to fall into a situation where your options get taken away bit by bit till you have none…more so if that situation occurs where morality, ethics, and civility are not in play. Yes one can argue a persons own strengths and weaknesses come into it…but anyone can be broken or corrupted with enough pressure on the right points.

“We all have to live with our choices…”

If they were genuinely ours to make then yes…if not…well that muddies the water quite a bit.

“I think we’ve derailed the discussion here far enough”

Oh indeed, this took a very odd turn. Apologies to all if any offense occurred.

I think we’ve derailed the discussion here far enough, over and out.

The problem is one can’t judge military action by civilian morality. You can’t subvert, resist, or quit. They’re not options by and large and those who risk it (many did historically) the consequences are high. A military world functions on a stringent chain of command where following orders is key. That command structure (really it’s the officers and junior officers that so much rests on) can rise or fall depending on the quality of those men & women…and they odd enough are the line between duty served or war crimes committed. By no means would I try to convince anyone German WWII soldiers should be honored…just that the issue has a lot of catch-22′s and highly controversial viewpoints and arguments.

Even if it weren’t the lives my family members at stake, I completely and utterly dismiss the notion that these soldiers were ‘just doing their job’, and therefore bear no moral responsibility. There is always the option to quit, to resist, to subvert orders. We are morally accountable for our actions, not our intents, and any job like that has politics inherent to it.
Think of the Death Star contractors argument from ‘Clerks’ ;)

and yeah, after googling I realized it was a doco. Downloading now from KG. Cheers.

The other issue arose within the survivors of the SS. You had essentially two different organizations. An Administrative arm that ran the death camps, and more internal administration like policing. Then you had the military arm which while notorious was still very different and made up an elite fighting force akin to special forces today.

The reasoning to honor the men who fought and survived is less out of glorification but to acknowledge they were not just “the bad guys” Japan came to terms with it much better than expected. So it IS possible. Personally I think it needs to happen in order to put to rest so much Nazi romanticism and give a more accurate understanding of just who the enemy was in WWII.

This of course leaves out the Campaign for North Africa since many consider it “The Last Clean War.” The behavior of German forces in Africa was completely different than those in Europe. Historical facts prove this and those who fought on both sides are already highly honored. A level or respect existed even during the campaign itself that was totally unique in the war. Memorials exist in the nations the campaign took place and even in military & similar circles German The Afrika Corps is highly respected. So its proven possible to honor those men…it just seems one needs to practically go division by division and then decide if one is to honor them for military accomplishments alone or damn them for actions now considered war crimes.

Doubt we’ll ever see a Das Reich Division memorial or ones dedicated to SS Panzer Divisions. Strangely a lot of websites & books that DO honor the men who served in those divisions are written or compiled by American and British historians, armchair scholars, and Ret. Military.

Being the ones who started the war is almost a non-issue since many nations honor men who fought in wars they started (win or lose.) In the US alone there are small graveyards to German soldiers who died here during the war. Quietly the graves are maintained and even honored on specific holidays. Strange but true.

The Architecture of Doom is a documentary actually. Forgot to mention that! Caused quite a firestorm when it was first screened. Not many liked the premise…but damned if it doesn’t make one well executed argument.

@Tequila – I have a very easy remedy for that particular headache. German soldiers of WWII should not be honored at all. None of them. The war started as a German offensive, even if later on they were on the defensive. Marching onto Czechoslovakia or Poland does not merit any honor or celebration, even if later on you were just trying to defend the heimat from the allied forces.

German members of the resistance should be honored, and indeed are.

I’ll look up The Architecture of Doom. Sounds like my kind of book!

Once the Holocaust started to become the topic of numerous documentaries, films, and television (the earliest I can think of TV wise was the episode of The Twilight Zone titled Death’s Head Revisited) it became as we know and study it today.

The imagery and language about it changed even though
powerful books (The Diary of Anne Frank & Night being great examples) had already given a human face to it…the moving image brought that massive horror to life in the ways only film & TV can. It was a catalyst for so much related to it that some now argue it’s a genre unto itself (that sounds distasteful to some but it’s an understandable sentiment.) It’s strange how the reality of it existed in so many forms…yet it was dramas about it that really hooked so many into facing it. War and Remembrance in the late 80′s had that effect in how it showed the brutality of the Holocaust where before it was only written about or shown in less graphic ways in popular films.

Prior to that Mini Series, and handful of films like Sophie’s Choice, and later Schindler’s List a lot of what is now standard imagery was rarely seen outside of documentaries. So while Film & TV didn’t originate the Holocaust discussions in society it definitely propelled it as a subject matter and historical event to levels not seen prior to the 70′s and beyond.

“…but because an aesthetic conception lay in the very inception of Nazism. I’m not saying that in all levels, Nazism was an aesthetic project, but a Nazi aesthetic ideal did motivate, inspire and play a significant role in the Nazi political project, itself Utopian (not for people like us of course) and with what one might call aesthetic “epic” inclinations…”

If you’ve not seen it yet check out The Architecture of Doom…it makes an argument that touches on those very issues and supports them in very unique & controversial ways.

“…Not every photographer that took a picture of Castro or every artist that wore a Mao T-shirt at some 60s happening share the same moral responsibility…”

Quite true but that goes for many within Nazi Germany and Nazi Occupied Europe itself. The question then becomes “How much do you have to do before you’re considered a collaborator?”

Moral responsibility is a hard thing to gauge…post war Germany never really figured that out. As is a unique debate rages about how German Soldiers of WW II should be viewed, honored, and celebrated (especially survivors of SS divisions). You want a headache real fast…try to figure that one out. Haha.

(Lothar Hermann was not a Jewish Nazi-Hunter, other than that it’s pretty much okay)