Posted 27 September 2011 - 10:51 AM
You choose to interpret his second quote to reflect his unwillingness to face the legal consequences of killing Hoess, but that's an unwarranted stretch.
It is unclear to me where I could find the "second quote" that could, in fact, be interpreted as an "unwillingness to face the legal consequences" etc. Byzantine stuff. I dont think I have made any such interpretation.
You think this quote proves that HOward had violent mpulses he had to suppress
Utter invention Frank, either that or you have become juggled betwixt posts, I did in fact use the quote to outline that Howard had "harder" feelings towards Hoess, I have not intended to prove things by selecting parts of the article. The phrase "violent impulses" is exclusively yours Sir.
Gary, I fear you are simply projecting your feelings onto Howard. This is what you imagine you would feel, under the circumstances, and so this is what Howard must have felt.
I must object to this Frank, Howard clearly wanted Hoess to suffer as the inmates did - he says so. I have re-read my "Howard" posts, being No.18 and 24No. and of course I can admit to not having contemplated my own feelings anywhere within them, rather I have used some amount of reasoning and certainly not emotives.
And the Hollywood movie jibe borders on the highly provocative Frank, especially as I made it clear that the DeNiro still was an "aside". You completely mis-represented me there Sir.
Notwithstanding all that has been written, I have come to learn that Howard`s "restraint" was managed by himself because of his belief in the Rule of Law taht was being administered in the Criminal Courtroom Hearings at Nuremberg. Howard believed in the avenging Justice that would be attained on behalf of his family and to the Jewish Nationals in general. On the Introduction page of the new book one can read the following quote by Howard;
"The only right way to punish these twenty-one defendants was to put them into the death camps and subject them to the same treatment they gave millions of others. But we couldn`t do that as a civillised people. Maybe for this reason, I was chosen for the job"
So Frank, it was not avoiding a murder charge, nor the acquiescence of outrage by time and distance and it was not exactly the potential for millions of others to gain joy from his hanging, although there is a subtle link to this idea in the above quote, it was his professional, civillity and belief in the Rule of Law, being seen to be done that enabled him to carry out his duty.
To answer my own question - Would I have been able to restrain myself if I were in his position ? I will never know.
Oh yes, I must not forget Frank I noted this point in your written work
ANd, as Howard specifically says, the thought would be there, that the prisoner is alredy in the hands of the judicial system, and that he almost certainly will die. My grief might still be there --it may never go away-- but I can no longer see myself as THE agent of justice and revenge. Others have that responsibility now.
This is where I shall add my very own Bravo !
Posted 27 September 2011 - 11:09 AM
Both Morgenthau and Weit were Jewish and when one reads the historical accounts of the day and their popular interpretations it would seem to me that such men were devoutly progressing revenge upon the German Nation totally. Had there not been powerful men in higher places to counter their machinations, then Germany would indeed have been relegated to an early 19th Century agrarian region of some 107 or so states.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users