• Log in or sign up for an account here: https://www.sythe.org/login

Holocaust Trials

blazinfasstt said:
even though there were incredible external pressures to make them act as they did, it is still unjustifiable in most circumstances.
ex. doctors that ran death camps
Click to expand...

To play devil's advocate, you're saying that you wouldn't save your family and yourself from torture and/or death given the opportunity? Because that was basically the option given: either join us and act with us or die.
 
weather thier actions were justicfied or not is beyond my judgement, some people had no choice, for example a friend's grandpa served for the Nazi's in order to keep his family safe, he did ofc regret everything he did b/c he wasnt one of those ppl who found joy in his wrk. another case was someone's grandfather joined the Nazi's not even knowing who or wat he was fighting for(was young at the time of enlisting) which is pretteh sad... in my opinoin... ppl do anything to find a reason to fight.. EXAMPLE last WWI vet was round idr 14 when he enlisted? or was it 16?
 
Pokemoners said:
To play devil's advocate, you're saying that you wouldn't save your family and yourself from torture and/or death given the opportunity? Because that was basically the option given: either join us and act with us or die.
Click to expand...

sometimes it is better to die with dignity than to die a monster.
 
<3 n4n0
Discord Verified
blazinfasstt said:
sometimes it is better to die with dignity than to die a monster.
Click to expand...

I mentioned this posting to my husband via SMS and he replied saying he would murder a pre-school full of children to keep me safe.

His reply has scarred me for life.

I do think that despite the pressures to do what they did, it is wrong. Or at least on the scale that everything from that war was performed at.

On the flip side, I could say that if someone was forced to rob a bank/murder someone or there family would be killed by home invaders was just doing what they had to in order to protect their family.

I dunno, too complicated.
 
Sillymonkey said:
I mentioned this posting to my husband via SMS and he replied saying he would murder a pre-school full of children to keep me safe.

His reply has scarred me for life.

I do think that despite the pressures to do what they did, it is wrong. Or at least on the scale that everything from that war was performed at.

On the flip side, I could say that if someone was forced to rob a bank/murder someone or there family would be killed by home invaders was just doing what they had to in order to protect their family.

I dunno, too complicated.
Click to expand...

if he murdered a pre-school full of children to save one person, i would definitively call him an evil selfish man.

you do also have the option to fight against your oppressors instead of siding with them.
 
blazinfasstt said:
sometimes it is better to die with dignity than to die a monster.
Click to expand...

LOL. Sorry, but human beings are not perfectly abiding towards their morals given the predicament aforementioned. Sure, you can say "omg this is wrong, i wont do it, even if it kills me." When in reality, the fact of the matter is, human beings are selfish and will generally do whatever it takes to survive. You have to realize that brainwashing and propaganda was a large aspect that was a major reason of the large success. They may have been taught that what they were doing was right, instead of wrong. Who is to say what defines morality and a dignified death?

blazinfasstt said:
if he murdered a pre-school full of children to save one person, i would definitively call him an evil selfish man.

you do also have the option to fight against your oppressors instead of siding with them.
Click to expand...

All human beings are generally selfish on some level. Yes, you do have the option to fight but it isn't a feasible or viable option.

Look it towards and empathetic point of view:

I've just been drafted to join the German army. I know that they kill many people and have brutalized many others. I have 3 kids and a beautiful wife. If I don't join, they will likely die and I will follow them to the grave. I know this is wrong but isn't it more immoral to indirectly let the ones I love die at my stubbornness? We may win the war so I'll take the chance and live.

^^^^ THAT is the mentality you should keep in mind.
 
i know there were incredible external pressures, as i stated in my first post

however, i do not condone people being so selfish as to kill tens of people to save maybe 4


just because it is what post people would do does not make it ok.

" it is no measure of great health to be well adjusted to a particularly sick society."
 
blazinfasstt said:
i know there were incredible external pressures, as i stated in my first post

however, i do not condone people being so selfish as to kill tens of people to save maybe 4


just because it is what post people would do does not make it ok.

" it is no measure of great health to be well adjusted to a particularly sick society."
Click to expand...

Morality and legality are two separate issues, however. Sure, it may not be right but it certainly was legal within the confines of the territories such atrocities were happening in.
 
Pokemoners said:
Morality and legality are two separate issues, however. Sure, it may not be right but it certainly was legal within the confines of the territories such atrocities were happening in.
Click to expand...

laws are often based on morals, or what is right and what is wrong in any given society.

i dont know what your trying to prove with that last sentence.
 
blazinfasstt said:
laws are often based on morals, or what is right and what is wrong in any given society.

i dont know what your trying to prove with that last sentence.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I was trying to state that if it was a legal discrepancy, why should the germans go on trial for their actions when it wasn't illegal? I mean, it's like if the United States suddenly bans smoking and they start to kill or imprison those that have smoked in the past but not now. I mean, it was legal but yet we're penalizing them for committing such acts when it was legal.
 
Pokemoners said:
Sorry. I was trying to state that if it was a legal discrepancy, why should the germans go on trial for their actions when it wasn't illegal? I mean, it's like if the United States suddenly bans smoking and they start to kill or imprison those that have smoked in the past but not now. I mean, it was legal but yet we're penalizing them for committing such acts when it was legal.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_humanity
 
I'll address the hypothetical where you are given a choice to either take part in the military and/or scientific experiments or die alongside your family.

From reading that extract they weren't tried for crimes which were technically 'made up' during the Nuremberg trials. They were able to justifiably connect their actions as being part of and in connection with WWII - as opposed to separate from (hence why they could not address pre 1939).

If a Nazi contends that he or she killed individuals in self-defence (i.e. with the threat of; kill or be killed) then even at a basic level self-help-defences wouldn't hold up in many jurisdictions.

I don't see how one could assert that what various members were charged and convicted with was widely unjust.
 
6 Million innocent Jews were killed during the Holocaust.
All because of a dictator, Adolf Hitler, 6 Million Jews died.
I do not think Germany should be punished because it was just Adolf's fault nobody else planned that.
 
Aquatic said:
6 Million innocent Jews were killed during the Holocaust.
All because of a dictator, Adolf Hitler, 6 Million Jews died.
I do not think Germany should be punished because it was just Adolf's fault nobody else planned that.
Click to expand...

other people did help plan the death camps

are you stupid?

seriously, hitler did not do that on his own.


a lion gets out of his cage and kills 6 million people, who do you blame.

the obvious answer here is the zookeeper
 
Hubba Bubba said:
Hitler didn´t killed them becouse he hated them he killed them to show his power.
Click to expand...
Well yes and no, he definitely used them as a scapegoat but he also held resentment towards them,but all Germans did even before Hitler was even a speck on the political map.

Pokemoners said:
Sorry. I was trying to state that if it was a legal discrepancy, why should the germans go on trial for their actions when it wasn't illegal? I mean, it's like if the United States suddenly bans smoking and they start to kill or imprison those that have smoked in the past but not now. I mean, it was legal but yet we're penalizing them for committing such acts when it was legal.
Click to expand...
Agree, it's also a point that the US is being hypocritical in this by charging them with crimes they themselves commit. "War" crimes are committed by both sides just whoever wins is cleansed of this? War crimes are ridiculous.

pur3 neon2 said:
I'll address the hypothetical where you are given a choice to either take part in the military and/or scientific experiments or die alongside your family.

From reading that extract they weren't tried for crimes which were technically 'made up' during the Nuremberg trials. They were able to justifiably connect their actions as being part of and in connection with WWII - as opposed to separate from (hence why they could not address pre 1939).

If a Nazi contends that he or she killed individuals in self-defence (i.e. with the threat of; kill or be killed) then even at a basic level self-help-defences wouldn't hold up in many jurisdictions.

I don't see how one could assert that what various members were charged and convicted with was widely unjust
Click to expand...

I can easily say it's unjust, they were allowed to do it when they were committing these actions, not only that but what they did was done during a time of war. Hitler found a use for them instead of just having then executed.(unless they couldn't work obviously)



I've seen morality come up alot in this topic and most people seem to have a bad definition of morality, if you're using morality to defend it being wrong then it can easily be used to defend it being right since morality is individually based. Maybe ethics can be what you mean but even so ethics don't define what is right and wrong it only gives a basis to go off of, agree or disagree with it.
 
In the Vietniam war there was a massacre in one of the cities were hundreds of villagers died. Only the guy in command was thrown in court, the other guys were just following orders.

Same with these people here, they were just following orders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Runescape Gamblingrunescape gambling
Back
Top