D Day 70 years on

[Craig4]

I'd have to disagree with it.

I think there was a narrow window in world history where killing Nazis would have been a criminal act, and rightly so, but still a good idea on moral grounds. I think there was a somewhat larger window where it was a good idea and not even criminal--the war itself. Now, today, I strongly disagree that it's a good idea to kill Nazis.

Are you serious about this idea? Is there any reason I shouldn't report your post for violating the MA prohibition against advocating criminal acts?

From a purely legal perspective, I'd agree that killing a Nazi in today's world outside of defending one' self or others is a bad idea. If we accept that the law is what civilizes us, it's a dangerous thing for anyone to be a law unto themselves. Having said that, while illegal, killing a Nazi has no more moral implication than setting out traps for mice.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

From a purely legal perspective, I'd agree that killing a Nazi in today's world outside of defending one' self or others is a bad idea. If we accept that the law is what civilizes us, it's a dangerous thing for anyone to be a law unto themselves. Having said that, while illegal, killing a Nazi has no more moral implication than setting out traps for mice.

You are so reported to PETA!

 

[Corsair 115]

I'd have to disagree with it.

I think there was a narrow window in world history where killing Nazis would have been a criminal act, and rightly so, but still a good idea on moral grounds. I think there was a somewhat larger window where it was a good idea and not even criminal--the war itself. Now, today, I strongly disagree that it's a good idea to kill Nazis.

Are you serious about this idea? Is there any reason I shouldn't report your post for violating the MA prohibition against advocating criminal acts?

You realize, of course, there is a difference between saying something is a good idea and saying that idea should be put into practice, yes? There are all sorts of perfectly valid reasons why a good idea may not be worth implementing, from cost to unintended consequences to legality and many others.

More generally, I take the comment to be metaphorical, not literal.

 

[Dinwar]

If we accept that the law is what civilizes us, it's a dangerous thing for anyone to be a law unto themselves.

What a strange and confused notion. The law is made by humans--worse, by politicians. The idea that politicians establish the principles that "civilize us" is something I find profoundly repugnant. What differentiats civilized people from uncivilized people is recognition of the rights of others. And that's the central issue here: unless the Nazi is a direct and immediate threat to you, you cannot kill them in self-defense. Self-defense requires an immediate and legitimate (or at least apparently legitimate; errors of knowledge are not failures of morality) threat to one's self. Outside of that, an objective process of law is required. The issue is, without objective standards and open proceedings, anyone can use any criteria whatever for their actions. And let's face it, what's being called for here is a lynch mob. Such farces of justice do not become defensible merely because we happen to also hate the targets.

I detest and despise Nazis. They cost my family a large chunk of our heratige, so there's a very personal hatred involved here. They stole things from me, my father, my grandfather, and my son. Because I hate them, I want to see them destroyed utterly. And that requiers due process in an open court--so that everyone can see that justice was done, and so that the Nazis have NOWHERE to hide, existentially or morally.

Now, if the extant Nazis attack or harm someone, that's different. As soon as they become a legitimate and immediate threat (as opposed to merely advocating moronic and dangerous ideas), they can--and should--be delt with in such a manner as to eliminate the threat. NOT "in such a manner as to kill them"; killing may be necessary, but the primary goal should be the elimination of the threat. I'll be the first to admit that I may not consider other options too thoroughly, however; after all, an immediate threat does cut into the time one has for deliberation.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'd have to disagree with it.

I think there was a narrow window in world history where killing Nazis would have been a criminal act, and rightly so, but still a good idea on moral grounds. I think there was a somewhat larger window where it was a good idea and not even criminal--the war itself. Now, today, I strongly disagree that it's a good idea to kill Nazis.

The Nazis I'm talking about fall into two categories, escapees from the Third Reich's killing machine and modern idiots who thought what they did was a good idea, just not taken far enough.

Are you serious about this idea? Is there any reason I shouldn't report your post for violating the MA prohibition against advocating criminal acts?

Review the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment, please.

 

[Dinwar]

The Nazis I'm talking about fall into two categories, escapees from the Third Reich's killing machine and modern idiots who thought what they did was a good idea, just not taken far enough.

Murdering the first is a violation of the concept of Rule of Law--essentially, it's vigilantism. At this point (ie, since the end of the war) the concept of due process is applicable. Morally, the immediate threat posed by these people has been removed, and therefore the concept of self defense (and defense of others) is inapplicable.

Murdering the second is generally the same, though worse--you're murdering someone for merely advocating something wrong, for a potential wrong. There is no immediate thread, and therefore again the concept of due process is applicable.

Either way, unless these people are immediate threats to you or someone else (and by that I mean direct threats--pulling a gun or knife on someone RIGHT NOW), what you are advocating is vigilantism and murder. It is a subversion of the Rule of Law. Given the number of peolpe that wish harm on you and me for our religious beliefs (ie, the fact that we are atheists), I find it astonishing that you would be so willing to discard that fundamental protection.

 

[sackett]

On the subject of Nazis: Everybody's right and everybody's wrong. Wasting one of them now would be illegal, immoral, unethical -- and stimulating.

No, we can't tolerate vigilantism, even against the likes of them -- especially against the. likes of them, because unless the loathsomest opinions are safe, none of us is safe; I mean that literally, because I survived more of the 20th. century than most of you, and my knowledge of calamities is broad and deep.

Yes, we can understand the desire to snuff a Nazi -- especially me, since I've met a couple, one of them an honest-to-jesus second-generation Nazi. (Or third-generation? Somehow both his father and grandfather has been in the SS. Not Waffen, but the other kind.) He was one of the silky, insinuating type of Nazi. "I hef nefer met a Chew," he purred to my Jewish girl friend, "ant I vould like to know more more about zem." I'm not exaggerating his accent of his manner. Of course I wanted to kill him. Being a country boy, I felt an urgent need for a pick-handle; 's what we use in preference to a baseball bat. I recommend one if you ever find yourself in among a pack of Nazis.

As you can guess, I did nothing but seethe inside myself; see above re illegal, immoral, etc. But I made sure I never found myself around him again.

And just once, I met Adolf Busemann, the father of the swept-wing airplane, a genuine first-pressing vintage Nazi scientist. He was very old and probably senile, a tall, lean, smiling, hawk-featured old Uebermensch with funny stories to tell about Peenemuende and the paperwork involved in getting a prisoner -- just one measley inmate, for pete's sake -- from Belsen, for testing in the new supersonic wind tunnel. "Finally, I put mine own hedt into it! Nussing happened!" Historical resources like that should be carefully preserved, and memories of them stored up for later use. Hope you can use this one.

 

[Dinwar]

Of course, I did nothing but seethe inside myself; see above re illegal, immoral, etc. But I made sure I never found myself around him again.

Oh, I never said to associate with them, much less to be nice to them! I'm all for advocating that no business allow them on the premises, much less engage in trade with them. If I saw a Nazi dying of thirst on the side of the road I would not offer him water, and I have no problem with the image of Nazis being reduced to subsistance farming, living off of scraps out of dumpsters, or dying of starvation because no one will sell them food. Freedom of association means we are free to NOT associate with anyone we choose, and I see no moral justification in associating, even in a vague business sense, with a Nazi.

I'm just saying we're not allowed to shoot or physically attack them without provocation, is all. People often mistakenly think that when I say things like this I'm being nice. As you can see above, I'm actually not. I'm very moral; I'm also very vicious, and understand very clearly what every word of the above paragraph means.

Historical resources like that should be carefully preserved, and memories of them stored up for later use.

True enough. One down side to suppressing evil ideas is that you can't show them to be evil--to do so would expose children to them, and we can't be having that!!

 

[jimbob]

On the subject of Nazis: Everybody's right and everybody's wrong. Wasting one of them now would be illegal, immoral, unethical -- and stimulating.

No, we can't tolerate vigilantism, even against the likes of them -- especially against the. likes of them, because unless the loathsomest opinions are safe, none of us is safe; I mean that literally, because I survived more of the 20th. century than most of you, and my knowledge of calamities is broad and deep.

Yes, we can understand the desire to snuff a Nazi -- especially me, since I've met a couple, one of them an honest-to-jesus second-generation Nazi. (Or third-generation? Somehow both his father and grandfather has been in the SS. Not Waffen, but the other kind.) He was one of the silky, insinuating type of Nazi. "I hef nefer met a Chew," he purred to my Jewish girl friend, "ant I vould like to know more more about zem." I'm not exaggerating his accent of his manner. Of course I wanted to kill him. Being a country boy, I felt an urgent need for a pick-handle; 's what we use in preference to a baseball bat. I recommend one if you ever find yourself in among a pack of Nazis.

As you can guess, I did nothing but seethe inside myself; see above re illegal, immoral, etc. But I made sure I never found myself around him again.

And just once, I met Adolf Busemann, the father of the swept-wing airplane, a genuine first-pressing vintage Nazi scientist. He was very old and probably senile, a tall, lean, smiling, hawk-featured old Uebermensch with funny stories to tell about Peenemuende and the paperwork involved in getting a prisoner -- just one measley inmate, for pete's sake -- from Belsen, for testing in the new supersonic wind tunnel. "Finally, I put mine own hedt into it! Nussing happened!" Historical resources like that should be carefully preserved, and memories of them stored up for later use. Hope you can use this one.

Thank you for that, nominated for the chilling quote at the end, that as you say should be remembered.