In Defense of Hitler (and Mao and Obama)

[syrakusos]

Among the many problems with war is that you become your enemy. I mean that both ways: you adopt the attributes of the other person; and you become your own enemy.

Over in the discussion on Islam and Libertarianism, talk of punishment on Earth and in Hell prompted proposals to hang, draw and quarter Adolph Hitler.

My questions are:

At what point in his life would he have deserved that punishment?

What did he do to earn it?

I look to the Toland biography. Hitler was the same person at 45 that he was at 14 or 7. Should he have been killed while in Landsberg writing Mein Kampf? After Munich? Rheinland? If invading Poland was wrong, what about invading the USSR? (Poland, by the way, was a military dictatorship. You know that, right?)

Then, like all second-handers, Adolph Hitler did not actually do anything himself. He "ordered" other people to do it, but he did not threaten them. He was powerless. He was only the highest expression of the Historical Idea of the Moment. Other people voluntarily did the things he suggested. In fact, if you read what he demanded and commanded, he was never very specific. "We must destroy our enemies!" is not a plan of action. The Wahnsee Conference was a plan of action. Operation Sea Lion was a plan of action. Hitler just ranted on stage and other people took that as their cue. Without followers, leaders are helpless. If you want to punish anyone, punish the millions of Germans.

Draw and quarter six million Nazis and what have you become?

Objectivists who think that retribution is justice are committing errors of social metaphysics and altruism by making the other person the object of justice. When you inflict suffering on another person, the harm is not just to them (though there is that), but the harm that you do to yourself.

[tjohnson]

Unfortunately, violence breeds violence unless one is smart enough to not get sucked in to the vicious-circle.

[BaalChatzaf]

Objectivists who think that retribution is justice are committing errors of social metaphysics and altruism by making the other person the object of justice. When you inflict suffering on another person, the harm is not just to them (though there is that), but the harm that you do to yourself.

What about self defense? Sometimes it is necessary to kill the people who make war upon you and yours. Self defense is always justified, without exception. He who is attacked is justified in killing the attacker. Period. The price of not inflicting suffering and destruction on the other is your own destruction.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

You have many good observations, but on the nonviolence principle, you have an incomplete view of human nature. Always have, ever since I have been reading your posts.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Unfortunately, violence breeds violence unless one is smart enough to not get sucked in to the vicious-circle.

What do you recommend? Running and hiding? Silly wabbit.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dragonfly]

The Wahnsee Conference was a plan of action.

Wahnsinn! It is not "Wahnsee Conference" but "Wannsee Conference".

[tjohnson]

Unfortunately, violence breeds violence unless one is smart enough to not get sucked in to the vicious-circle.

What do you recommend? Running and hiding? Silly wabbit.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You can even see this principle in action in discussions. People get sucked into arguments as well and then they stop discussing and start name-calling, like calling people 'rabbits' or 'chickens'. But now that you ask, I would take the action that leads to the least amount of destruction of lives and property, and take great measures to keep conflicts from escalating.

[Brant Gaede]

Sure, if I could go back in time with pre-historical knowledge I'd kill little Hitler.

If would make more sense to stop, somehow, the gross insanity of WWI, the consequences of which have shaped the modern world grotesquery.

What do you think WWII was about, Michel M.? A lot of people trying to kill Hitler et. al.

As for Obama, he's irrelevant. Thanks to him and Bush the country's going into the crapper. They've been there and done that. If by some miracle the health care bill is stopped in toto there may be some small hope to the contrary. I'm afraid that won't stop the next President from getting into a big war.

Knowing what Hitler was and did, anyone is entitled to imagine putting him alive into the chipper feet first in slow motion. My fantasy is running him over with a Sherman tank. That way I don't have to watch when he goes squish--or imagine that part of the scene.

If I hadn't been in the army and seen hundreds of dead bodies and people die, I wouldn't really be capable of bloody imaginings. What I see is too real. War somewhat damaged me but nothing compared to what happened to many other war veterans physically and mentally. I don't have nightmares and sleepless nights.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Unfortunately, violence breeds violence unless one is smart enough to not get sucked in to the vicious-circle.

What do you recommend? Running and hiding? Silly wabbit.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You can even see this principle in action in discussions. People get sucked into arguments as well and then they stop discussing and start name-calling, like calling people 'rabbits' or 'chickens'. But now that you ask, I would take the action that leads to the least amount of destruction of lives and property, and take great measures to keep conflicts from escalating.

GS: If you are talking about war you are prolonging it, probably contrary to your desired effect. Generally speaking simply avoiding war is the best policy by far, x-appeasement.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It is a mistake to compare a soggy liberal like President Obama to a bloody dictators like Mao and Hitler.

That makes for incorrect identification of the problem.

Michael

[tjohnson]

GS: If you are talking about war you are prolonging it, probably contrary to your desired effect. Generally speaking simply avoiding war is the best policy by far, x-appeasement.

--Brant

I agree that "the war" may be prolonged but it would be of a very different character. I think I could make a case for a totally different kind of response to the actions of Germany and Japan in WWII. I think if the US and allies had concentrated on stopping further expansion and building up their defenses and helping Resistance activities in all the occupied countries a lot less destruction and death would have occurred. I think the Nazi and Japanese empires would have crumbled on their own much like USSR did because totalitarian states are not viable in the long term.

[9thdoctor]

The dialogue about drawing and quartering was banter, it’s not applicable to anything (barring the emergence and capture of Hitler’s equal), and note my formulation: “I have to admit if Hitler had been drawn and quartered I’d have had trouble articulating an objection to it.” I didn’t say I’d initiate it, approve it, or take part in it. It’s not a proposal.

I think this clip from Judgement at Nuremberg points to the answer of when Hitler should have been “taken out”, as Jabba would say:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnvtCGj8Sow&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnvtCGj8Sow&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnvtCGj8Sow&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

As to the statement that Hitler didn’t do anything himself, I’m stunned into silence.

[Christopher]

Splendid ideas Michael.

From an Objectivist standpoint, I agree that we can only be responsible for our personal actions and not the actions taken by others. If Hitler had true authority and could urge others to action through force, Hitler must be punished. If others, through their own social-metaphysical perspectives, took action in the name of Hitler, those people should be punished. Hitler was a leader, and I believe (although I have never examined closely) that Hitler was probably a mastermind behind gathering power through subtler means (that imply but not directly demonstrate force). I also believe that he recommended taking explicit actions that led to human death as well.

Another fact to consider that doesn't fit in neatly with Objectivism is that people are obligatory culturalists (and group affiliators, etc). The reality of the group exists within all people... we are massively social animals. Hitler recognized this, viewed people in groups, and took actions that gave him power in the group. In other words, Hitler was ontologically for group behavior as a reality. Doesn't a leader assume responsibility for a group within such a context? In other words, Hitler's own worldviews demand he take responsibility for group actions.

We probably all know realistically that group behavior is both the responsibility of the leaders and the followers. If a leader knows his commands will be followed, it is irresponsible for him to give such commands and then pretend his hands are clean. Hitler took action known to cause death by commanding others (just like shooting a gun causes a bullet to pierce another person). Hitler wasn't shooting a volitional bullet, he knew his bullet was blindly following him. Therefore, although his followers lacked appropriate volition and should be punished, his exploitation of this fact makes him still quite evil. He is still more morally evil than his followers, for whereas his followers have brainwaves that are empty, his were tuned to malvolence. He was volitionally evil. I'd rather face a dumb brute than a cunning monster any day of the week.

-------

As for your punishment description... I am in agreement with you. When we harm others, it causes us suffering at basic human levels. The only value to causing others to suffer is when the payoff of the punishment (protection of values such as human rights, etc) outweighs the pain. Ideally, we truly need to pursue punishment that minimizes pain and maximizes benefits. Capital punishment is probably not the right way to go, especially when we consider life as a standard for value

[Christopher]

By the way, I hope I just gave Hitler a fair trial and found him guilty. It makes me physically sick trying to even think from Hitler's point of view and granting him fairness.

[jeffrey smith]

Objectivists who think that retribution is justice are committing errors of social metaphysics and altruism by making the other person the object of justice. When you inflict suffering on another person, the harm is not just to them (though there is that), but the harm that you do to yourself.

What about self defense? Sometimes it is necessary to kill the people who make war upon you and yours. Self defense is always justified, without exception. He who is attacked is justified in killing the attacker. Period. The price of not inflicting suffering and destruction on the other is your own destruction.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But an action which is justified is not (necessarily) an act of justice.

Consider the following hypothetical. Brant, rendered temporarily insane by all the nonsense he was subjected to at SOLO, starts shooting at Adam. In self defense, Adam shoots and unfortunately kills Brant. This is justified, but it is an act that renders justice to Brant? Since the root cause was a series of actions performed by the SOLOists, wouldn't the rendering of justice focus on them and not the insane and therefore not accountable for his actions Brant?

Jeffrey S.

[Brant Gaede]

GS: If you are talking about war you are prolonging it, probably contrary to your desired effect. Generally speaking simply avoiding war is the best policy by far, x-appeasement.

--Brant

I agree that "the war" may be prolonged but it would be of a very different character. I think I could make a case for a totally different kind of response to the actions of Germany and Japan in WWII. I think if the US and allies had concentrated on stopping further expansion and building up their defenses and helping Resistance activities in all the occupied countries a lot less destruction and death would have occurred. I think the Nazi and Japanese empires would have crumbled on their own much like USSR did because totalitarian states are not viable in the long term.

Yes, that's why I carried a 410 shotgun in Vietnam loaded with rock salt. Many others decided to shoot only blanks. The communists cowered in place eventually winning the Nobel Peace Prize which out of shame they refused.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

But an action which is justified is not (necessarily) an act of justice.

Consider the following hypothetical. Brant, rendered temporarily insane by all the nonsense he was subjected to at SOLO, starts shooting at Adam. In self defense, Adam shoots and unfortunately kills Brant. This is justified, but it is an act that renders justice to Brant? Since the root cause was a series of actions performed by the SOLOists, wouldn't the rendering of justice focus on them and not the insane and therefore not accountable for his actions Brant?

Jeffrey S.

Word salad and hypotheticals are a waste of time.

Keep it simple.

If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, rip his arm off and beat him over the head with it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Objectivists who think that retribution is justice are committing errors of social metaphysics and altruism by making the other person the object of justice. When you inflict suffering on another person, the harm is not just to them (though there is that), but the harm that you do to yourself.

What about self defense? Sometimes it is necessary to kill the people who make war upon you and yours. Self defense is always justified, without exception. He who is attacked is justified in killing the attacker. Period. The price of not inflicting suffering and destruction on the other is your own destruction.

Ba'al Chatzaf

But an action which is justified is not (necessarily) an act of justice.

Consider the following hypothetical. Brant, rendered temporarily insane by all the nonsense he was subjected to at SOLO, starts shooting at Adam. In self defense, Adam shoots and unfortunately kills Brant. This is justified, but it is an act that renders justice to Brant? Since the root cause was a series of actions performed by the SOLOists, wouldn't the rendering of justice focus on them and not the insane and therefore not accountable for his actions Brant?

Jeffrey S.

I once went temporarily insane when my Father was dying in a hospital. I calmed down. The doctor called an hour or so later to tell me he had died.

--Brant

knows nuts--prefers mixed

shoots Adam? Xray made me do it

[jeffrey smith]

I once went temporarily insane when my Father was dying in a hospital. I calmed down. The doctor called an hour or so later to tell me he had died.

--Brant

knows nuts--prefers mixed

shoots Adam? Xray made me do it

Ouch! Apologies if the hypothetical cut too close to home.

Jeffrey S.

--who has gone temporarily bonkers a couple of times thanks to the prednisone they give him for his Crohn's

Edited January 6, 2010 by jeffrey smith

[Christopher]

Temporary insanity - another good reason why over-aggressive self-defense ultimately fails to gain moral sanction.

[Brant Gaede]

I once went temporarily insane when my Father was dying in a hospital. I calmed down. The doctor called an hour or so later to tell me he had died.

--Brant

knows nuts--prefers mixed

shoots Adam? Xray made me do it

Ouch! Apologies if the hypothetical cut too close to home.

Jeffrey S.

--who has gone temporarily bonkers a couple of times thanks to the prednisone they give him for his Crohn's

Don't worry about it; I'm industrial tough.

--Brant

whimper

[syrakusos]

... Another fact to consider that doesn't fit in neatly with Objectivism is that people are obligatory culturalists (and group affiliators, etc). The reality of the group exists within all people... We probably all know realistically that group behavior is both the responsibility of the leaders and the followers.

Thanks for your response, and thanks. also. for considering the question in the spirit in which it was intended. Based on your reply, I wondered about two women, Betty and Wilma. Longtime friends, while at lunch, Wilma tells Betty that her husband Fred is having an affair. All the signs are there. She has not confronted him, yet. After commiserating, Betty (an avid fan of murder mysteries), rattles off nine ways that Wilma could kill Fred and make it look like an accident or otherwise distance herself from the event. What is Betty's responsibility for Wilma's killing Fred?

Hitler was only one of several to many such in Germany at that time. Streicher I believe was another street corner orator. He always carried a whip, an affectation that Hitler adopted briefly. Streicher later joined the Nazis, and still carried the whip. Of course, there were communists, as well. Adolph Hitler was not special in any way, except for being the best orator at the moment and the Nazis were the thuggiest of hoodlums. Had he (and they) been a communist, the outcome would have been the same only different. And in fact, it is true that they were, after all only non-Marxist socialists, communists of a slightly different albeit very red banner. The point is that there is no way to make him special. We imbue Hitler with mystical magical charm of evil mind control (+10; double roll) which objectively does not exist. Germany had many such men because the society allowed them to exist and encouraged them. What if, instead, these men were laughed at? What if no one took their newspapers? A dozen crazy people can hold a meeting, but the meetings would never have become rallies in the Sportpalast, except that they spoke to the hearts and minds of millions of people. I believe that the millions are more responsible than the aberrant few. And I believe that Wilma but not Betty is to be held for the death of Fred.

I grant that humans are social animals. Here we are, socializing under the watchful Alpha Male eyes of MJK. But do you imagine that he holds any power? Not all people are equally socialized in the same ways The only means at our disposal that I know of to decide responsibility is at the individual level. Can you make a case for punishing a group as a group for being a group and then specially punishing the group's (self-identified) leader?

[syrakusos]

The dialogue about drawing and quartering was banter, it’s not applicable to anything ... I think this clip from Judgement at Nuremberg points to the answer of when Hitler should have been “taken out”, as Jabba would say... As to the statement that Hitler didn’t do anything himself, I’m stunned into silence.

To take the last point first, oddly enough, it is likely that Adolph Hitler never even killed anyone when he was a soldier in the Bavarian army in World War I. He was a messenger, a moving target for others.

Thanks for the reminder of Nuremberg. This is known as United States of America v. Altstötter [Altstoetter] et al. and also cited as "The Justice Case") 3 T.W.C. 1 (1948), 6 L.R.T.W.C. 1 (1948), 14 Ann. Dig. 278 (1948). and "The Ministry Cases." These cases are especially relevant as they are about people who actually committed crimes. The defendants were themselves judges who enforced the Nuremberg [Nürnberg] Laws, the race laws of the Nazi regime. This also brings the discussion out of the grey and toward the blacker and whiter of moral problems. I suggested above that if the people in the streets had ignored these orators, laughed at them, shunned them, they would never have gained power. That is true. What, then, of judges. if a judge hands down a ridiculous sentence, does the bailiff have to carry it out? It would seem so, as there are other remedies for an incompetent judge. What, then, when the entire system is gone mad?

There are many sites about the Nuremberg Cases (Altstoetter, the Justices).

This is from the Law School at the University of Missouri at Kansas City

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/alstoetter.htm

(Note the variant spelling: al-no t-stoetter versus "Alt - stoetter" I believe that it is Alt judging by this old archive.

http://www.archives.gov/research/captured-german-records/microfilm/m889.pdf

but many sites (and cites) leave out the T.

Anyway, the argument made by the justices is that under German law, Hitler was the Supreme Judge and they were powerless to ignore his orders.

Another argument is that the imposition of International Law after the war was ex post facto.

Finally, Ninth Doctor, I understand and appreciate the fact that, indeed, when the judge knew that he convicted an innocent man to death, the death camps were inevitable.

How, then, do you view the many exonerations for murder and rape?

Since 1989, there have been 249 post-conviction DNA exonerations iwon in 34 states.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/351.php

According to statistical inferences carried out by two University of Michigan Law professors, since 1980, there have been 86,000 wrongful convictions of all kinds. Eight times a day, someone is sentenced for a crime they did not commit. Burglary, larceny, fraud, embezzlement, money laundering, simple assault, theft, .... many crimes leave no DNA evidence. The same malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance applies: police zealousness, prosecutorial misconduct, junk science, evidence tampering, jailhouse snitches, witness errors, blackmail. What would an international tribunal say about the American justice system?

And, more to the point, who should be punished for it? Barack Obama? George H. W. Bush? Eliot Spitzer? Rudolph Giuliani?

Giuliani, in particular, is easy to single out because he prosecuted Michael Milken in a classic case of wrongful conviction. But the jury convicted... and the judge sentenced... So, who is to be punished by that international tribunal?

Do you believe that the "leader" is specially culpable for the uncoerced actions of the "followers"?

(And yes, I understood the drawing and quartering to be rhetorical, but it hit home, considering the context. The discussion at that time went from stoning adulterers to drawing and quartering Hitler. Non-Muslims adopted the values of their captor in a classic play of the Stockholm Syndrome. (... which may, in fact, invalidate Stockholm, as you and the others did not truly learn those values but only revealed your own...) )

Edited January 6, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[syrakusos]

Michael,

You have many good observations, but on the nonviolence principle, you have an incomplete view of human nature. Always have, ever since I have been reading your posts.

Michael

Michael,

You have many good observations, but on the nonviolence principle, you have an incomplete view of human nature. Always have, ever since I have been reading your posts.

Michael

Is there an echo in here?

Can you cite an example from the real world where a final resort to violence was not evidence of incompetence?

(Before you reply, refresh your memory: "The Argument from Arbitrary Metaphysics - Objectivist Living"

www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4957)

[Brant Gaede]

MM: Does Charlie Manson get a pass?

Hitler was given power, then he took the rest of it.

--Brant