Page 10 of 14
Re: Riots in the city of love
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2026 5:53 pm
by Impenitent
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 3:12 pm
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 2:12 pm
question: is Hitler responsible for the actions of his soldiers?
-Imp
Which actions? The actions of those who obeyed him, or the actions of those who refused?
others act, yet it is you who are morally responsible...
(have you "proselytised" enough?)
-Imp
Re: Riots in the city of love
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2026 5:54 pm
by Impenitent
Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 3:40 pm
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 2:12 pm
question: is Hitler responsible for the actions of his soldiers?
-Imp
That wasn't the verdict at Nuremburg.
was Jesus at Nuremburg?
(some "soldiers" are more equal than others)
-Imp
Re: Riots in the city of love
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:07 pm
by Gary Childress
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 2:12 pm
question: is Hitler responsible for the actions of his soldiers?
-Imp
If Hitler gave the soldiers orders and they followed them to the letter or carried out what he wanted them to do, then could he not be responsible for the actions of his soldiers?
In other words, if Hitler said, "invade Russia", and then added, " Don't kill anyone in the process", and his soldiers invaded Russia as commanded but had to unfortunately kill people in the process to carry out his order successfully, would that make Hitler not responsible for the actions of his soldiers?
Re: Riots in the city of love
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:22 pm
by Impenitent
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:07 pm
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 2:12 pm
question: is Hitler responsible for the actions of his soldiers?
-Imp
If Hitler gave the soldiers orders and they followed them to the letter or carried out what he wanted them to do, then could he not be responsible for the actions of his soldiers?
In other words, if Hitler said, "invade Russia", and then added, " Don't kill anyone in the process", and his soldiers invaded Russia as commanded but had to unfortunately kill people in the process to carry out his order successfully, would that make Hitler not responsible for the actions of his soldiers?
the question is one of freewill
sure, the soldiers made the choice to join the military and follow orders... is the soldier's freewill absolved when they are carrying out orders?
"The holy land has to be freed..."
is it acceptable in the mind of a crusader; yet, not acceptable in the mind of an Islamic soldier?
-Imp
Re: Riots in the city of love
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:28 pm
by Gary Childress
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:22 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:07 pm
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 2:12 pm
question: is Hitler responsible for the actions of his soldiers?
-Imp
If Hitler gave the soldiers orders and they followed them to the letter or carried out what he wanted them to do, then could he not be responsible for the actions of his soldiers?
In other words, if Hitler said, "invade Russia", and then added, " Don't kill anyone in the process", and his soldiers invaded Russia as commanded but had to unfortunately kill people in the process to carry out his order successfully, would that make Hitler not responsible for the actions of his soldiers?
the question is one of freewill
sure, the soldiers made the choice to join the military and follow orders... is the soldier's freewill absolved when they are carrying out orders?
-Imp
So, in other words, Hitler was not responsible for the actions of his soldiers if he didn't specifically tell them to kill people in the process of invading Russia? Is that correct?
"The holy land has to be freed..."
is it acceptable in the mind of a crusader; yet, not acceptable in the mind of an Islamic soldier?
So who do you think is responsible for the Crusades, the soldiers who fought in them or the leaders who told them to fight in them?
Re: Riots in the city of love
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:28 pm
by Immanuel Can
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 5:53 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 3:12 pm
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 2:12 pm
question: is Hitler responsible for the actions of his soldiers?
-Imp
Which actions? The actions of those who obeyed him, or the actions of those who refused?
others act, yet it is you who are morally responsible...
Well, I wouldn't give Hitler
credit for those who stood against him...but I would give him
blame for those who obeyed him.
Re: Riots in the city of love
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:40 pm
by Impenitent
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:28 pm
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:22 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:07 pm
If Hitler gave the soldiers orders and they followed them to the letter or carried out what he wanted them to do, then could he not be responsible for the actions of his soldiers?
In other words, if Hitler said, "invade Russia", and then added, " Don't kill anyone in the process", and his soldiers invaded Russia as commanded but had to unfortunately kill people in the process to carry out his order successfully, would that make Hitler not responsible for the actions of his soldiers?
the question is one of freewill
sure, the soldiers made the choice to join the military and follow orders... is the soldier's freewill absolved when they are carrying out orders?
-Imp
So, in other words, Hitler was not responsible for the actions of his soldiers if he didn't specifically tell them to kill people in the process of invading Russia? Is that correct?
I never said that, I merely asked the question... but it doesn't seem fair to be held responsible for the actions made by other autonomous beings ... does acting at your mother's command absolve your actions?
"The holy land has to be freed..."
is it acceptable in the mind of a crusader; yet, not acceptable in the mind of an Islamic soldier?
So who do you think is responsible for the Crusades, the soldiers who fought in them or the leaders who told them to fight in them?
disgruntled Christians aside, that is the question...
-Imp
Re: Riots in the city of love
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:41 pm
by Impenitent
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:28 pm
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 5:53 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 3:12 pm
Which actions? The actions of those who obeyed him, or the actions of those who refused?
others act, yet it is you who are morally responsible...
Well, I wouldn't give Hitler
credit for those who stood against him...but I would give him
blame for those who obeyed him.
if it weren't for Hitler, no one would have stood...
-Imp
Re: Riots in the city of love
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:46 pm
by Gary Childress
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:40 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:28 pm
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:22 pm
the question is one of freewill
sure, the soldiers made the choice to join the military and follow orders... is the soldier's freewill absolved when they are carrying out orders?
-Imp
So, in other words, Hitler was not responsible for the actions of his soldiers if he didn't specifically tell them to kill people in the process of invading Russia? Is that correct?
I never said that, I merely asked the question... but it doesn't seem fair to be held responsible for the actions made by other autonomous beings ... does acting at your mother's command absolve your actions?
"The holy land has to be freed..."
is it acceptable in the mind of a crusader; yet, not acceptable in the mind of an Islamic soldier?
So who do you think is responsible for the Crusades, the soldiers who fought in them or the leaders who told them to fight in them?
disgruntled Christians aside, that is the question...
-Imp
Why would it not be "fair" to hold Hitler responsible for the destruction and death wrought during the invasion of Russia, something which Hitler ordered to be done? Note, I'm not saying that a soldier couldn't be responsible for a war crime. And presumably all soldiers in professional armies should know what war crimes they can be held responsible for and be responsible for committing them.
Do you disagree? And if so, what part of my paragraph above do you disagree with?
Re: Riots in the city of love
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:54 pm
by Impenitent
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:46 pm
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:40 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:28 pm
So, in other words, Hitler was not responsible for the actions of his soldiers if he didn't specifically tell them to kill people in the process of invading Russia? Is that correct?
I never said that, I merely asked the question... but it doesn't seem fair to be held responsible for the actions made by other autonomous beings ... does acting at your mother's command absolve your actions?
So who do you think is responsible for the Crusades, the soldiers who fought in them or the leaders who told them to fight in them?
disgruntled Christians aside, that is the question...
-Imp
Why would it not be "fair" to hold Hitler responsible for the destruction and death wrought during the invasion of Russia, something which Hitler ordered to be done? Note, I'm not saying that a soldier couldn't be responsible for a war crime. And presumably all soldiers in professional armies should know what war crimes they can be held responsible for and be responsible for committing them.
Do you disagree? And if so, what part of my paragraph above do you disagree with?
I'm not saying that Hitler wasn't responsible
Sgt. Shultz shot and killed Corp. Smirnov in the battle of Stalingrad
did Sgt. Shultz or Hitler pull the trigger?
-Imp
Re: Riots in the city of love
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:59 pm
by Gary Childress
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:54 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:46 pm
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:40 pm
disgruntled Christians aside, that is the question...
-Imp
Why would it not be "fair" to hold Hitler responsible for the destruction and death wrought during the invasion of Russia, something which Hitler ordered to be done? Note, I'm not saying that a soldier couldn't be responsible for a war crime. And presumably all soldiers in professional armies should know what war crimes they can be held responsible for and be responsible for committing them.
Do you disagree? And if so, what part of my paragraph above do you disagree with?
I'm not saying that Hitler wasn't responsible
Sgt. Shultz shot and killed Corp. Smirnov in the battle of Stalingrad
did Sgt. Shultz or Hitler pull the trigger?
-Imp
Sgt. Shultz is not responsible for the death of Corp. Smirnov if Shultz was doing his duty or following the orders of Hitler to invade Russia at the time of the incident when Shultz shot Smirnov. Adolf Hitler is responsible for the death of Corp. Smirnov.
Re: Riots in the city of love
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2026 8:04 pm
by Impenitent
the devil made me do it...
-Imp
Re: Riots in the city of love
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2026 8:10 pm
by Gary Childress
To be more clear. Sgt. Shultz did indeed pull the trigger and shot Smirnov, however, Hitler is responsible for Smirnov's death if Sgt. Shultz was carrying out Hitlers orders. If Sgt. Shultz then proceeded to kill Smirnov's family who were cowering in a foxhole near by, then that would be a warcrime and Shultz would be responsible for the death of Shmnirnov's family, provided they were not posing a threat to Sgt. Shultz when he killed them.
Re: Riots in the city of love
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2026 8:11 pm
by Gary Childress
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 8:04 pm
the devil made me do it...
-Imp
Too bad you are responsible for any evil you commit. Or do you believe that all evil is the work of the devil and human beings don't have free will?
Re: Riots in the city of love
Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2026 8:23 pm
by Immanuel Can
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:41 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 7:28 pm
Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Oct 21, 2026 5:53 pm
others act, yet it is you who are morally responsible...
Well, I wouldn't give Hitler
credit for those who stood against him...but I would give him
blame for those who obeyed him.
if it weren't for Hitler, no one would have stood...
-Imp
I can't claim to be able to make sense of that response. What do you mean? That the people who refused to do the evil that Hitler commanded were somehow bad?
