Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by jandrese | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

jandrese

[flagged]

View on HN

> History has a term

> History records the actions, not the intent

You haven't spent much time with history, have you?

> Regardless of what you think, it is your actions that matter.

There's a legal definition for "the intent to commit a crime"[1]. (Even if it's not a legal definition in a particular jurisdiction, certainly it's a concept that can be understood.) It seems to me that we can apply that question of intent to the individual when it comes to the crime of genocide.

The world is full of nuance and you should be cautious when a statement lacks said nuance.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

I'm not a court of law and have no obligation to act according to the principles of one.

Parent is probably trying to help you understand that in the civilized world intent is broadly agreed to matter.

The argument wasn't that you violated a law, it was that your argument is blunt and lacks nuance.

As you said:

> Regardless of what you think

edit: I misunderstood who was responding. Please read instead: "As was said".

Your claim is akin to calling all U.S. service members who joined after 9/11 Republicans, it's inaccurate.

Do you not realize it was possible to join the armed forces without being a member of the Nazi party? Only the SS required Nazi party membership.

As an introduction to anybody who wants to learn more about the subject, I can recommend a video where Sönke Neitzel talks about the motivation of German soldiers during WWII: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phhmXyrRQb8

Neitzel is professor for military history at Potsdam University and arguably the world's foremost historian on the subject of the history of mentalities of the Wehrmacht.

In fact Wehrmacht members were barred from NSDAP membership. I remember one case of a u boat commander that joined the navy to avoid NSDAP membership. He was later sentenced to death for defatism, despite intervention from senior Navy leadership. After that it took decades for him to be rehabilitated post WW2.

Calling all Germans, 33(39) - 45 Nazis is strong. The truth is as well, so, that the Wehrmacht supported, enabled and perpetrated war crimes and genocide. As an organization, not every individual soldier did so.

EDIT: A lot of the, especially young, officer corps was heavily Nazi influenced. Up to a third joined the NSDAP. In that case it is a clear sign of being a Nazi. As contrasted by practically forced NSDAP membership, e.g. teachers. That's one of the reasons de-Nazification was such a mess, but far from the only one.

I also have heard stories of young men from that era convicted of relatively minor crimes, such as property theft. They would be given the option between a jail sentence or military service. Unsurprisingly, many chose military service.

If two men are fighting side by side, carrying out the same acts, and one has a card in his pocket that says nazi and the other doesn't. I'm meant to understand that we're talking about one nazi, not two?

Sorry I do not accept this contortion.

Shades of grey, lady.

Why not? I could join the US military and fight alongside a communist, muslim, christian, nazi, etc. that wouldn't mean I was any of those things.

No but it does make you a soldier. That's the entire point here. We don't care what they thought of themselves, we care what they did.

>No but it does make you a soldier

So you're abandoning the claim in your comment I responded to and agreeing with me?

I'm saying that what they did was nazi shit, in alignment with nazi values, towards nazi goals, so I feel good about calling them nazis. Regardless of whether they would have called themselves nazis.

Why do you care so much about party membership? Why the project of establishing a high barrier and technical definition for what a nazi is?

My question to that would be: is a pacifist in the trenches of Vietnam on the side of the Americans equally culpable as the infantry soldier with a rifle? Both carryout essential tasks, both are likely conscripts. The only different is 1 has a rifle and didn't object to compulsory service. The other one made an objection but still performs an essential service.

I'm not trying to establish a generalizable moral calculus of culpability though. Just refuting the idea that soldiers fighting for nazi germany were somehow not nazis if they weren't registered party members.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com