Ah, now I will admit to there having been a potential nuance. I certainly would want a trial before an execution, for instance. But I also think it would be wrong to assume these scientists were completely morally innocent. Maybe I could be persuaded from my earlier opinion of “You always shoot a Nazi” but there needs to be something to show. A diary entry saying “I’m not sure about this Hitler fella.” Something.
What you’re suggesting is stooping to the level of the nazi cruelty by a complete breach of agreement even after the other party has fulfilled their terms. Also what was that pathetic attempt at baiting the other guy by saying: “aRe yOu SuGgEsTiNg iT iS wRoNg tO sHoOt NaZiS?!!”. Like that wasn’t even the point of the other guy.
I think many of the scientists weren’t Nazis, but rather forced to work for the Nazis, fearing for their and their family’s lives. I could be wrong though, it has been a while since I’ve investigated that matter.
To be frank, it would be hard to siphon out truth from fiction at this point from personal accounts. That said, of course I distinguish between a forced Nazi accomplice and a sympathizer. I am not suggesting that they should be treated the same. I am suggesting that the U.S. was so zealous in its efforts to defeat the Russians that it wasn’t making distinctions.
The second one makes for one less Nazi. Thus less warcrimes. Dont tell me theres some magical “cycle of hate” you’re beholden to, just for putting down a child-killing government operative.
Two war crimes dont make a right
I apologize if I’m misreading. Are you suggesting that it would be wrong to shoot a Nazi?
After promising safety in exchange for cooperation, and presumably without having convicted them of anything besides their former party affiliation?
Von Braun was not just guilty by association he utilised concentration camp slave labout
yeah Von Braun literally ran some of his rocket research out of a fucking death camp
A man whose allegiance is ruled by expedience?
Ah, now I will admit to there having been a potential nuance. I certainly would want a trial before an execution, for instance. But I also think it would be wrong to assume these scientists were completely morally innocent. Maybe I could be persuaded from my earlier opinion of “You always shoot a Nazi” but there needs to be something to show. A diary entry saying “I’m not sure about this Hitler fella.” Something.
Either trial him OR make a deal. You cant make a deal and after getting what you want proceed to trial him.
What you’re suggesting is stooping to the level of the nazi cruelty by a complete breach of agreement even after the other party has fulfilled their terms. Also what was that pathetic attempt at baiting the other guy by saying: “aRe yOu SuGgEsTiNg iT iS wRoNg tO sHoOt NaZiS?!!”. Like that wasn’t even the point of the other guy.
I think many of the scientists weren’t Nazis, but rather forced to work for the Nazis, fearing for their and their family’s lives. I could be wrong though, it has been a while since I’ve investigated that matter.
To be frank, it would be hard to siphon out truth from fiction at this point from personal accounts. That said, of course I distinguish between a forced Nazi accomplice and a sympathizer. I am not suggesting that they should be treated the same. I am suggesting that the U.S. was so zealous in its efforts to defeat the Russians that it wasn’t making distinctions.
didn’t Hitler get the idea of concentration camps from the US?
I think you are idolizing US in this a bit too much, they weren’t exactly much better than the nazis.
I mean I know for sure Eugenics were a popular idea in the US during that time, PoC were treated terribly etc.
The second one makes for one less Nazi. Thus less warcrimes. Dont tell me theres some magical “cycle of hate” you’re beholden to, just for putting down a child-killing government operative.