Remek Cahena III wrote:Penn-44 - I am finding it very difficult to find anything specific you object to (presumably because you haven't read the book), just a generalized "problem with Weber taking a condescending attitude towards Hitler’s service and making judgments of it when he has not served himself."
Finally, the first rays of light begin to pierce the darkness that is Cahena’s head.
Remek Cahena III wrote:What, specifically, does Weber's "condescending attitude" consist of? The bare faced affrontery to comment on combat while perhaps not having served himself?
Yes, Weber’s effrontery to comment with a condescending tone.
Remek Cahena III wrote:As I said before, this would probably disqualify 99% of AHF members from contributing here.
Yes, they are disqualified to take a condescending tone regarding a man who by all appearances did his duty.
Remek Cahena III wrote:Furthermore, it would disqualify all of us from taking a position on anything we had not personally experienced. (There, for example, goes any principled objection any of us might care to take against the so-called Holocaust, because, by virtue of not having experienced a gas chamber, we are, according to you, unqualified to comment).
Hitler’s service in WWI and the Holocaust are two very different situations. Hitler was no “Rambo,” but he did his job as a soldier, and by all accounts did it well. Hitler never claimed any great heroics. The Holocaust was a criminal act, and a blind man can see that.
Yes, as I said before, non-combatants are unqualified to speak on numerous matters because they lack the needed experience. Furthermore, they tend not to know when to shut up, and sit down.
Verstehen Sie?
Cahena, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Penn44
.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.