Live data from Hacker News

Germans Who Refused to Execute Civilians During World War II (1988) [pdf]

sci-hub.tw

61–70 of 112 posts

Re: Germans Who Refused to Execute Civilians During World War II (1988) [pdf]

#61
It makes me angry, when I see people online talking about the whole of the WWII Wehrmacht as if they are all uniform, fungible movie villains. This was a huge organization of human beings. The degree to which any individual is culpable needs to be considered on an individual basis. Human rights are absolute, even for the soldiers of the enemy. Principles like that are what separate free countries from tyranny.

This is not to say, that there isn't a group accountability for an organization like an army, where people are all wearing the same regalia and literally marching under the same banner. This implies a group responsibility for calling out the wrongs of one's own side. The morality of the faction can be measured as a whole by how well it calls out its own failures of principle, and by what principles it says it upholds and by what principles it eschews.

Re: Germans Who Refused to Execute Civilians During World War II (1988) [pdf]

#62
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other one is to acknowledge and believe deeply that your acts were wrong. I cannot think of another country that breathes these values so sincerely and profoundly. I am sure everyone knows that Germany is in no way unique in its killing of millions. I have no German ties whatsoever but I am in deep admiration of their capacity to accept, correct and be vigilant of repetition. I know neo-nazism exists. I hope it c…

I moved to Germany from America precisely because of Germans' lack of hubris about their ability to take responsibility for the crimes of their nations' past - while America is, without doubt, not ready to confront its own heinous crimes, being committed in present time, as yet. Neo-nazism doesn't scare me as much as the average American patriot, whose political cover allows many, many crimes to be committed in their…

When making serious accusations be sure to detail them in order to expose your inner logic to the scrutiny of others, else you’re just another idiot making unfounded claims on the internet.

Re: Germans Who Refused to Execute Civilians During World War II (1988) [pdf]

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Morals are for the individual, ethics is for the group. The level and state of each realm, defines the state of the other.

Even if that's true, which I'm not sure it is, it doesn't necessarily mean that morals emerge from individual choice. Personally I think morals are emergent from groups.

Morals are an individual personal choice - derived from the word 'morales', which means 'custom'. Individuals adopt customs - both learned individually, and mores adopted from a group.

Ethics are a group choice - a set of morals, in the plural, derived from "ethike" - the 'science of morals'.

They're interlocked, sure, but it is an individual who makes a moral decision for themselves, but an ethical decision for their group...

EDIT: I mean, all you have to do is look at the definition of both words in a few dictionaries. Its pretty clearly stated that ethics are a group of morals formulated around the purposes of a group, where morals are derived from and based on an individual decision. Can't have one without the other.

Of course, you are within your rights to disagree - such is the nature of the ethics of philosophical discussions.

Re: Germans Who Refused to Execute Civilians During World War II (1988) [pdf]

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if that's true, which I'm not sure it is, it doesn't necessarily mean that morals emerge from individual choice. Personally I think morals are emergent from groups.

Morals are an individual personal choice - derived from the word 'morales', which means 'custom'. Individuals adopt customs - both learned individually, and mores adopted from a group. Ethics are a group choice - a set of morals, in the plural, derived from "ethike" - the 'science of morals'. They're interlocked, sure, but it is an individual who makes a moral decision for themselves, but an ethical decision for thei…

You've obviously defined it that way but I don't see why it's true. Your argument is essentially that morals emerge from individuals because of the etymology of the world moral. I don't find that very convincing.

Re: Germans Who Refused to Execute Civilians During World War II (1988) [pdf]

#67
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To be fair I don't think anybody saw systemic violence upon civilians during a war between states (as opposed to a civil one) as a realistic possibility during the inter-war period. It was well outside the customs of war in our corner of the world at that point. Really? Atrocities against civilians in war were common even then. No need to look further than e.g. the colonies.

> Really? Atrocities against civilians in war were common even then. No need to look further than e.g. the colonies. I think the point was that scale of it was quite different in WW2. In WW2 the majority of casualties were civilians, which was new compared to previous conflicts.

> In WW2 the majority of casualties were civilians, which was new compared to previous conflicts

I'd have to see data on that, not that I definitely disbelieve it. But it does seem to me that this was more often the case than not.

Re: Germans Who Refused to Execute Civilians During World War II (1988) [pdf]

#68

It makes me angry, when I see people online talking about the whole of the WWII Wehrmacht as if they are all uniform, fungible movie villains. This was a huge organization of human beings. The degree to which any individual is culpable needs to be considered on an individual basis. Human rights are absolute, even for the soldiers of the enemy. Principles like that are what separate free countries from tyranny. This i…

What most Americans know about WW2 they learned by watching Raiders Of The Lost Ark. The image of WW2-era German males is nothing more than cartoonish at this point.

Re: Germans Who Refused to Execute Civilians During World War II (1988) [pdf]

#69

It makes me angry, when I see people online talking about the whole of the WWII Wehrmacht as if they are all uniform, fungible movie villains. This was a huge organization of human beings. The degree to which any individual is culpable needs to be considered on an individual basis. Human rights are absolute, even for the soldiers of the enemy. Principles like that are what separate free countries from tyranny. This i…

As the paper clearly illustrates, there were so few documented cases of refusal that they are negligible when weighing the war crimes of the Wehrmact and its members.

Less than one hundred out of millions.

Viewing them all as “fungible villains” is a very accurate approximation with a ridiculously low error.

Re: Germans Who Refused to Execute Civilians During World War II (1988) [pdf]

#70

It makes me angry, when I see people online talking about the whole of the WWII Wehrmacht as if they are all uniform, fungible movie villains. This was a huge organization of human beings. The degree to which any individual is culpable needs to be considered on an individual basis. Human rights are absolute, even for the soldiers of the enemy. Principles like that are what separate free countries from tyranny. This i…

Something like 80% of the 60 - 65 million people killed during world war 2 were unarmed. They were civilians or prisoners of war.

The vast majority of these were killed by Germany, Japan, Italy, and Soviet Union.

While there were individuals who resisted this, the systems of government and the belief systems that drove the totalitarian states where unprecedentedly horrific.

If you're interested in learning more about this history, "The Second World Wars" by Victor Davis Hanson is a good place to start.

Post reply on HN