Text 1775, 99 rader
Skriven 2009-12-17 12:08:16 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
   Kommentar till text 1753 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: The Evil That Men Do
============================
Hello Bob,

>WD>Eichman never disputed the Holocaust.

>BF>Is that a crime punishable by death even according to Israeli law, you
>BF>think?

RB>No, but organizing the transportation of millions to the
RB>extermnination camps in full knowledge of what awaited them
RB>(remember the Wannsee Conference?) certainly was.

What order?  Whose order?  With no orders, what order could be signed?
You are making an extreme assumption.  An assumption that Eichmann was
fully aware of the fate of those sent to work camps, and had given, in
effect, tacit approval by signing orders (none of which has ever been
found) given to him by his superior, Adolf Hitler.

>BF>What about the guys (easily identified) that dropped the bombs over
>BF>Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Hanoi, Baghdad etc.?

RB>You forgot Coventry, Rotterdem, London, Prague and a few others.

War is hell.  People die.  Get over it.

>BF>They killed millions of innocent civilians because they "only followed
>BF>orders", weren't they just as guilty?

RB>You're confusing people like Eichmann with front-line soldiers.

Eichmann was a clerk.  Just a lowly clerk.  As such, he did no killing
of his own.  Soldiering is an honorable profession, regardless of what
country's army a soldier is soldiering for.  And so are civil servants,
whose duty is to the people of whom they serve.

>BF>Or is it just yet another case of the same old "the victors write the
>BF>history"?

RB>Not unless you're totally amoral. There is, even if you don't
RB>recognize it, significant difference between people like Eichmann
RB>(and the other participants of the Wannsee Conference) and soldiers
RB>doing their duty - even if that duty is reprehensible.

Duty.  Honor.  Country.  In that order.  Eichmann was German.
He was also a non-Jew.  His employ was a government not well-liked
by Jewish people.  Eichmann was true to his country.  Not so the
Jews in Germany.

RB>One issues the orders, the other carries them out.

Presumably, Adolf Hitler gave the orders.
But no such order has ever been found by any historian of note.

Presumably, Adolf Eichmann signed the orders given by Adolf Hitler.
With no orders, how can any order be signed?

Here is what supposedly happened -

Adolf Hitler gave the orders.
Adolf Eichmann signed the orders.
Soldiers (and others) carried out the (signed) orders.

However, there is a problem with that scenario.
No orders have ever been found.
Not by Hitler.  And none signed by Eichmann.

So how did the story about The Final Solution get started?
Did somebody make it all up?  If Hitler gave no orders, and
Eichmann signed no orders, then who did?

RB>So who's to blame for the consequences?

Those who fabricated the story.

RB>Both, in the final analysis -

And what was Adolf Hitler guilty of?
What was Adolf Eichmann guilty of?

RB>but without the orders,

None have ever been found.

RB>there would be no action.

Soldiers often take action, with or without orders.

RB>So go figure - and try your polemics elsewhere.

If evidence exists, it should be easy to show.
But since there is no evidence, all you have is hearsay.
IOW, a story.  Or fairy tale.

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * "Hey Toto, we're not in Ponchatoula anymore."-J.Carville

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.mooo.com (3:800/432)