what do you do with the evidence about Germans who believed that the genocide of the Jews was a moral imperative?
I don't really have a problem with saying that that wasn't moral. There really isn't any moral framework that allows you to get away with that sort of stance - it's purely self-serving (although I agree that there are far trickier grey areas, especially as they relate to sexuality).
if an author wants to argue for this kind of moral degradation specifically at Stalingrad (or any other crisis point), he or she has to either (a.) be able to prove that any specific German soldier did not know about any of the profoundly immoral actions of the Germans--and from what I understand, it would have been hard for any German soldier not to know about the Einsatzgruppen--or (b.) be willing (and capable) of talking about the reverse-polarity morality indoctrinated by Nazi Germany
I'm not sure about this. I think a lot of people feel that they aren't responsible for sins committed by their government (otherwise we'd all feel a hell of a lot worse about the Middle East) as long as they weren't actively involved in committing that sin themselves. There's a still a long way to fall from "basically decent human being who doesn't want to think too hard about what their government is up to" to "active rapist and child-murderer". The Eastern front was undoubtedly hugely traumatic in this respect - but it sounds as if Craig is making the German soliders out to be a great deal more virtuous even than this rather grubby claim.
simply because of the realities of warfare I would totally agree with this, but then I don't share Craig's view of warfare as a fundamentally valorous enterprise!
I also never said their suffering doesn't count. No, you didn't. I confounded your criticisms of the book with some of the criticism made in the comments and I apologise for that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2009-08-05 04:56 pm (UTC)I don't really have a problem with saying that that wasn't moral. There really isn't any moral framework that allows you to get away with that sort of stance - it's purely self-serving (although I agree that there are far trickier grey areas, especially as they relate to sexuality).
if an author wants to argue for this kind of moral degradation specifically at Stalingrad (or any other crisis point), he or she has to either (a.) be able to prove that any specific German soldier did not know about any of the profoundly immoral actions of the Germans--and from what I understand, it would have been hard for any German soldier not to know about the Einsatzgruppen--or (b.) be willing (and capable) of talking about the reverse-polarity morality indoctrinated by Nazi Germany
I'm not sure about this. I think a lot of people feel that they aren't responsible for sins committed by their government (otherwise we'd all feel a hell of a lot worse about the Middle East) as long as they weren't actively involved in committing that sin themselves. There's a still a long way to fall from "basically decent human being who doesn't want to think too hard about what their government is up to" to "active rapist and child-murderer". The Eastern front was undoubtedly hugely traumatic in this respect - but it sounds as if Craig is making the German soliders out to be a great deal more virtuous even than this rather grubby claim.
simply because of the realities of warfare
I would totally agree with this, but then I don't share Craig's view of warfare as a fundamentally valorous enterprise!
I also never said their suffering doesn't count.
No, you didn't. I confounded your criticisms of the book with some of the criticism made in the comments and I apologise for that.