Can you honor the warrior without honoring the regime?

[Estilicon]

@Jackmannii

It would still be interesting to know if recognition of the 70th anniversary of Langsdorf’s death is something proposed as a small ceremony by a historical society, or whether a right-wing political group wants to use it to raise attention for their cause.

The letter was in response to another letter that propesed that the Argentine Navy put a temporary guard of honour in Langsdorff tomb.

I found out about it after posting. I think that a state backed ceremony is too much.

[MrDibble]

You cannot honour the warrior without, in some way, honouring the regime. My logic in this is simple - the warrior fights, even if reluctantly, in support of the regime. He always has the option of either not fighting, or else fighting in opposition to the regime. If he does not choose to do so, he is complicit with helping that regime.

[Yookeroo]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

In cases like this it’s somewhat tricky. Not every German was a Nazi during World War II, and not every Nazi actually believed in the policies established by the Nazis. Germany was a one-party dictatorship, so it was in everybody’s best interest to join the Nazi Party if only out of a sense of self-preservation.

History is full of examples of people that fought for their country in spite of their leadership.

Maybe so. I’ll grant that knee-jerk condemnation of any individual German of that era isn’t a good idea, even including the soldiers fighting on the side of the evil regime. But I see no case in going so far as to honor any of the soldiers who worked to further Hitler’s cause.

@casdave

Look at the behaviour of the individual and make your judgments on those, and in his actions Langsdorff was not what one might call evil, he made a few mistakes in the way he engaged the British but I don’t think any credible historian would lump him in with the Nazi excesses and it does a disservice to all the victims of the 3rd Reich to do so.

Still, i see no reason why he should be honored.

[Laudenum]

@MrDibble

You cannot honour the warrior without, in some way, honouring the regime. My logic in this is simple - the warrior fights, even if reluctantly, in support of the regime. He always has the option of either not fighting, or else fighting in opposition to the regime. If he does not choose to do so, he is complicit with helping that regime.

So, honouring soldiers in Iraq is the same as honouring Bush?

[Rhythmdvl]

Interesting question.

Could it be that the Nazi regime is in such a tier that nothing closely tied to it can be honored? Is it in a class by itself? Could a Hutu or Tutsi fighter be decently honored – same tier of evil? Would the passage of time make a difference?

Where do Confederate Civil War soldiers stand? President Jackson?

[MrDibble]

@Laudenum

So, honouring soldiers in Iraq is the same as honouring Bush?

Pretty much, yes - or Obama, now, I guess. But also the US Government as a whole entity, independent of who is currently its short-term executive.

ETA - not that I think much better of US soldiers in Iraq than I do of German WWII soldiers…