@@Balls1414 it's a quote from Brooklyn 99 where a perp "did it for love" to which Jake Peralta (the main character) answered "cool motive, still murder"
People forget that empathy doesn't mean agreement, just understanding. Finding a person's actions inexcusable or even unforgivable isn't mutually exclusive with understanding why that person committed those actions and considered them acceptable.
First heard this concept when I was 14 from a criminal psychologist. "Pity the person for the suffering that led to these actions, but that doesn't absolve them of their crimes. You can understand why but that doesn't make it any less horrible"
Yeah, without undermined what Third reich were doing serious war crimes in Europe. Imperial Japan were doing somewhat very brutal thing across Asian yet They considered They war victim and not apologize what They had been done in the past.
A very good discussion. I have said many times that people can be both victims and perpetrators. On an individual level, we all go through stuff in life. But we owe it to outselves and the trauma we experienced to stop that cycle. The freedom we enjoy can only exist so long as the freedom of others is preserved. Depriving people of their lives (the ultimate deprivation of freedom) is essentially denying our own freedom.
>The freedom we enjoy can only exist so long as the freedom of others is preserved That is often the problem, though. It's really hard to "project" freedom unto others when one is not free themselves. That's why there are high crime and low crime countries, areas etc. I would say this applies on international level too, that's what revanchism is essentially.
@@Loromir17 I guess I more apply that philosophy on an individual basis. I rarely, historically, address entire countries or groups at all when it comes to morality. I endeavor to analyze individual sources, but dislike making broad generalizations. I also think that it is hard to necessarily define freedom. I still stand by the fact that killing a person is definitely despriving them of ultimate freedom. But on other levels, freedom may mean very different things to people. To some, freedom is the safety and security while to others, it is liberty of action. They are both right if that is what they truly value.
You deny someone their humanity and their freedom, and they will be willing to commit unspeakable acts. His cause to fight is just, his cause to murder is inexcusable.
we kill to survive, we hurt to make examples. we are animals and our made up rules do not apply to people who have decided revolt away from them. judging what a desperate man/woman does while we sit safe and warm is narcissistic and wasteful. better to understand why something happens and try to prevent it, than judge someone for actions in a situation that we have never and hopefully will never experience. punishment has its place, but instead of assigning blame we must strive to keep those types of situations from happening on mass ever again.
@@davidmccormick7419 Part of trying to prevent these atrocities from ever happening again is not trying to say those atrocities were any less bad because of their reasons for happening. If you have a group of people who believe it is okay to murder another group because of past infractions, then you end up with more atrocities, not less.
@@davidmccormick7419 So if what you just said led to someone harming one of my loved ones would that justify me seeking vengeance on you out of desperation?
@@weebishusername9288 i feel like you only read the first sentence. but ill try to clarify. if there is a group of people actively trying to make you or, your family, or culture group not exist anymore then you have the right to resist with any and all means. and regular people who have never experienced that do not have the right to pass judgment on desperate people because there is no way of knowing how we would act in there place
@@davidmccormick7419 I know people that have been that still did the right thing, and they experienced the same or worse (I don't know anyone specifically I am just referring to a historical context)
A war crime most people tend to forget about is the fort pillow massacre where the Tennessee brigade massacred a all black union regiment that afterwards Nathaniel Bedford forrest even criticized the event calling it a disgrace
An often overlooked part of historic interpretation that can be difficult to talk about, and when it is, is often discussed with a lack of honesty and integrity. Thanks for having both.
The footage shows the claustrophobic, desperate and depressive nature of urban combat. It’d be all too easy to lose your mind when left to fight for your life in a situation like that. I think you guys did a good job.
On the other hand, the problem is that when you're just trying to give an explanation for something, context or trying to correct preestablished believes, you're instantly having labels put on you for justifying warcrimes...
I think I read something similiar to that on an essay on how a lot of people nowadays perceive the Germans during WW2 as purely evil, it ended with a quite important summarization that I'll try to paraphrase: "Most people see the SS or even the Wehrmacht as Monsters with no feelings that were evil in every way, with no justification and no empathy. If similiar events were to repeat that lead up to these atrocities, these people won't be looking for the same causes or humans, they'll be looking for Monsters."
Quick reenactment question: do you wear ear protection for a skit like that? Gunfire is hell on the ears under any circumstances, but indoors like that especially so.
@@BrandonF Do you know if the soldiers of WW2 did wear any kind of ear protection? Or did they just took it as it was. Did many soldiers suffered from hearing loss?
Nearly every reenactor with firearms wears ear protection. Too darn important and simple not to. Historically I recall only artillery men would have ear protection, tankers/air crews would have radio headsets. Even up to today, most foot soldiers won't, so they can hear the enemy coming better. Artillery= titanic boom= insta deaf artillery men
@@j.h-j5j I know that Germans had hearing protection in the form of Ohropax ear plugs, but I'm not sure how commonly they were used, and I think it was a privately purchased item as opposed to being issued. I believe that in the German Soldbuch, or paybook/ID book, there was a mention of ear protection as a special issue item for men who had suffered ear injuries, however I don't have my Soldbuch copy available right now so I can't confirm that.
As a Black American Man, I totally appreciated your artful dipping of the toe into troubling, modern day waters. It is my wish and prayer that those who need to hear and understand your well thought out argument will find this video. As a retired 20 year Navy man, I salute you, sir😊👍
I often get this problem from the opposite end. Rather than people using explanations as a justification; I have a problem where people mistake my explanations as being the same as me justifying things. And when I explain that I am not justifying, I am just explaining; they seem get really upset that I am willing to explain something I don't think is justified.
I watch a lot of war films but unlike most, I don’t watch to cheer on a particular side or to feel good about the violence, I watch for the very reason you wanted us to watch those (very well made) clips. To understand and acknowledge the madness that was the horrors of humanities past and to recognize how individuals on all ends felt and what they experienced. Without recognition and understanding of humanities past and the violence that erupts from the human condition that is feelings, we can never find ourself to truly judge what goes on today with sound judgement and without bias. Thank you for this video btw, I find you explain everything very thoroughly and managed to only increase the value of these clips 😊 keep up the great work.
I feel your statement on war crimes against civilian populations is spot on, just because one side committed atrocities against civilians dosnt excuse it for them to do the same, no one wins in war (even the winning side loses in even the most lopsided of wars, people lose loved ones even in small conflicts), although the scary thing these days is the line between combatant and civilian blurs during the modern asymmetric wars if the last few decades, the footage was amazing, have you considered makeing a feture length film?
This talk reminds me of an old dutch book series set in Nazi occupied Holland in where the main protagonist's teacher is a Nazi sympathizer bc he hates the Brits for what they did to his family in the 2nd Boer war, and so bc the Nazis are fighting the Brits the teacher is friendly to the Nazis. In the end I think the teacher get killed by Dutch freedom fighters but its interesting as the story does as you say maybe pity the teacher but it still 100% makes it clear that the teacher is one of the bad guys.
Unrelated, but a funny ww2 reenacting story. My German camp was between a US armor unit to the left and a Red army unit to the right. It was a January, 1945 event. It was the most historically accurate I've ever felt...
Yeah, I hear that a lot. "It was the SS doing the war crimes, the Wehrmacht were just normal soldiers serving their country!" I mean I'm sure the average SS volunteer was more motivated by Nazi ideology than the average Wehrmacht conscript, but the army was ultimately still the primarily tool used in the conquest and subjugation of Europe, and they were certainly doing some appalling things. Which is to be expected of course; pretty much every army commits war crimes in pretty much every war. Even the military of a liberal democracy like the USA has committed many war crimes from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. So the idea that the German Army in the context of WW2 was somehow pure and honourable is just ludicrous; the entire German military forces were committed to Nazi goals.
The other classic is, "Well they did commit war crimes but only because they were forced to." Members of the Wehrmacht could say no and some did say no, Himmler specifically created an order against forcing the Wehrmacht to take part.
@@someguy3766 Yes, that is just one of the many Nazi myths which are taken as gospel in regions such as America - mainly due to the Cold War. In order to distance themselves from the crimes of the Nazis, the generals of the Wehrmacht claimed that they were innocent and that it was the SS who were doing all of the nasty stuff, surprisingly this worked due to the political reality of the time. Another myth is that of Soviet "wave attacks" which, again, is the result of lies from the Wehrmacht commanders which many people took as fact. The Wehrmacht commanders, unsurprisingly, wanted to portray themselves as competent and skilled generals, as many would go on to serve the new western regime. They did their best to portray the Soviets as a bunch of idiot subhumans, who blindly ran into gunfire in the millions, and that their defeat was not actually caused by their own shortcomings. This is also part of the reason why America (ironically enough) has far more Nazi sympathizers than Germany, due to this anti-Soviet / anti-Russian sentiment.
I don’t think anyone who’s had cursory glance at the history of the Eastern front would say that. The war crimes committed by both sides at every level is stunning in the worst kind of way.
You know what you're saying means a lot. I don't see much of your content, but I know it's there. I spend my time looking at certain things of history on Wikipedia and left with a sense of understanding.
(edit: I removed the SW reference to make the message clearer). In all seriousness, that was one of the best reenactments I've ever seen, but also one of the most chilling. I've always wondered why humanity needs violence to solve its problems when we can just sit down and set aside our differences. This video makes me ask myself if a distinction can be made between "necessary conflict"-from a certain point of view-and needless bloodshed. Does our species really need to resort to violence against our own kind as a means of survival? If so, what purpose does it serve? To defend oneself, to acquire land and resources, to have a purpose in life? How does one justify such actions against other fellow human beings? These are questions that have been asked since the dawn of mankind and will continue to be asked for eternity.
Having been a whataboutist when I was a teen, this is probably the best reasoning in why that what about ism is wrong. Context doesn't make things not wrong anymore, it makes their actions somewhat understandable. Or more accurately removes the monster element to the villain and understand why they did such monstrous things. The villain is still the villain, actions are still wrong.
M8, your footage isn't going to cause someone to believe In extremist world views If they believe in such ideologies or indeed not, this isn't going to change something so engraved
@@spitandfire he's on about Brandon being worried that these skits would have the idiots that support and even worship either faction take it as a "my side is right". It's not. The Eastern Front was a fucking bloodbath and horrible, look at Poland. First the Germans killed off any form of leadership, thinking, and medical so that they could "condition" the poles into being a slave class, while the Soviets did the same but along the lines of political bias. Poland was raped, nothing else can describe it better
I agree but explanations can help understand what happened and how they can make things better to stop future instances...atleast thats how i see it. I could be totally stupid and not understand. Maybe my heart is to many sizes to big for the world
@@BrandonF absolutely underviewed comment, as much as I understand the rage of the red army upon entering Berlin, as some places, in such as in Belarus, where 1/4th of the population was killed, liberating some of the worst concentration camps. It is completely unsurprising that reprisals had occured. But after all of that being said, it wasn't at ALL justice, committing crimes against those who have laid down their arms, or even civilians doesn't undo the crime that caused the reprisal, nor does it, in the overwhelming majority of cases, punish the perpetrator of the original crime
Civil Warfare I take what I like to think is an Engineer’s view of Justice: those lives are lost and can never return, just as those killed by the Hyatt Regency walkway or the Bhopal leak or Chernobyl. For those victims, there can be no justice. But if we learn from them, we can build a just world for the future.
If drug use is causing a lot of crime in a neighborhood the government should try to stop the drug problem. It doesn’t matter that it’s still the persons fault you can prevent crime and improve health by stopping the drug problem.
Black people are oppressed in the US. "Oh, but what about Irish people? My great grandma was an indentured servant! I live in a million dollar house because of hard work"
I was on a urban combat exercise. I was first. saw two enemies sitting resting at a wall. my adrenaline filled brain thought that one of their weapons moved. so i did a failure drill on the first. the other did something that i couldn´t see and I heard shoots fired. so the other one went the same way. I got the question why I shoot. lets say as much. shit happens in urban combat. It´s not like you have to be evil to do things that looks kind of bad. when looking from the outside.
I wholeheartedly agree. There's no justification for war crimes under any circumstance. The Soviets, Germans, and Allies all commited horrific acts with WW2 being the bloodiest time in human history. I personally get frustrated by the West glossing over their own crimes. The biggest being the deployment of atomic weapons against civilian targets in the Pacific theatre. Some how it's not considered a war crime to many as an aircraft was used rather than a gas chamber or rifle barrel. In the UK we had "bomber" Harris who advocated carpet bombing against German civilians and was allowed to do so for a long while before he was instructed to stop. Some how the fact that the Germans were bombing our cities means to many it's justified, despite it having almost zero impact on the war effort. Blood for the sake of blood.
it wasn't a war crime in ww2 context because it was legal at that time ,strategic bombing wasn't ban until 1949 and dresden wasn't just bomb for shit and giggle,the city got 110 factory producing good for nazi war effort and 2 railway ub that were used for logistic of the army group center and it has an impact ,look how the prouction got down in 1945
@@bigyin2586 And I still think that dresden was horriblebut when talking about strategic bombing,we need to take in account the military significance of the city
Well done tackling a difficult topic. History and war is seldom simple and clean. Rather complicated and bloody. Yet it is discussions like these that need to happen, lest we forget and repeat atrocities of the past. Keep up the good work!
Thank you, Brandon. Thank you to all those who worked with you on this. I hope this is seen by as many people as possible, especially younger folks. "You did it first!" or "You did it worse!" can never justify any behavior. I don't know if you are a Dr. Who fan, but there was a 2-part story that touched on this. "The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion" with Peter Capaldi as The Doctor. Both sides had their hands over The Button and wouldn't back down. How the Doctor showed the futility of fighting for grievance, reprisal and 'what-about-ism' is amazing and thought provoking. It's worth the watch.
you can kill them. they are easy targets, actually. You are simply not allowed to kill them. I am kidding, of course. But I sometimes find it weird that can't = mustn't. F.e. "Sorry, you can't smoke here" (while the person is already smoking there)
@@istvansipos9940 im guessing you're first language isn't english? Because it is a truly weird language. I dont even try to use all the correct grammar rules when writing or typing since it would take way longer and would not matter at all.
Nice one Comrade Brandon. A good argument explaining "just because I'm explaining a situation doen't mean I'm condoning or endorsing a particular mob" and 'Moral Equivalancy' being used to excuse war crimes (which we're still uncomfortable with discussing in the UK about the Bomber Command campaign- "You annihilated Dresden" "Yeah, but they flattened Coventry and they're Nazis"-). Which of course doesn't avoid the fact the Allies were fighting Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan etc, for the people it was a war of national/personal survival. "Oh, half my extended family are dead, we're up against a back alley with a broken bottle against our throats, the skies are dark with bombers raining horror on our homes and if they come here I'm dead because I'm on a list..." Yeah, Total War/World War/Civil War/War tends to wipe out a lot of 'comfortable' assumptions about good guys/bad guys. Though if a screaming horde of Waffen-SS appeared on my street I think I'd instantly know who the bad guys were. The fact is, War is a sign of faliure, War is a marker of stupidity, War itself a crime. On a lighter topic, if that's possible, quite liked the re-enactments. The first reminded me of the end scene of 'Come & See' (1985). It's nice (!) to see re-enactors doing World War Two who aren't fat, middle aged blokes pretending to be frontline troops (which we do have a problem with in the UK with one notorious bunch of fat geezers doing Waffen-SS Liebenstandarte reactments who are basically neo-nazis who delightfully got kicked out of 'Salute' -the UK's biggest wargaming show in London- a few years back when the organisers went, "You're not here for the history are you? Fuck Off!") . Plus that one guy who does that death fall at the end has a future in stunt work. Cheers!
Well Dresden was a military target, and the ~25,000 dead in its flattening completely pair in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and the 76,000 civilian dead because it had to be taken conventionally. There was no resistance in Dresden and actually saved more of the people’s lives than not bombing the city would have.
The problem is with most countries, the USA definitely included, the vast majority of people think, “It’s okay when we do it,” even as they deny it happened or think up excuses for it. The truth is, they don’t care it’s a crime when it’s their side.
I think that the thing a lot of people are missing with system theory is that just because you can explain, understand, and maybe not even being able to blame someone entirely for their horrible actions, does not necessarily stop it from it being a horrible act and thus should not have happened. A good reason why we want independent 3rd parties as the judge as such in the court.
I adore this video because I like to have these types of conversations with people. I like to talk about the reasons behind people's horrible actions not to free them of blame but to help understand how good people can be driven to do bad things. If we can look closely with a mature and balanced view at things we hate and condemn it will help us not commit these same acts.
There may be no justification for any of these things, but I've always boiled it down to this; when your just after being in a high stress situation, seeing your comrades die around you and you've already killed a good number of the enemy in that combat and they finally surrender. They've already killed some of your friends, so what is another extra few bodies added to the pile by that point? It might even make you feel 'better' in that moment because you've exacted justice for your fallen comrades. Its still not a justifiable action by societal or rules of war standards. But in that moment you personally feel justified in your actions. And really, that is all that matters to people.
there are military law in my army that is. 1.Military personnel can refuse to an order that is ethically wrong, illegally wrong morally wrong. if that individual personnel still follow those kind of order or willing to do so, those individual is guilty of crime. so "i was follow an order" excuse will invalid to use.
Why "German especially" Germany is one of the few countries that own up to the atrocities and war crimes that were committed. On the other hand you have presidents of other countries threatening war crimes and calling the Geneva conventions a problem: “The problem is we have the Geneva conventions, all sorts of rules and regulations, so the soldiers are afraid to fight.”
carpe diem “on all reenacting forums” is a key part of that sentence. I don’t know where in my comment I mentioned anything relating to what you are talking about (without my words being taken out of context).
@@morganchaput5376 I just didn't get why it would be German reenacting forums especially. When the video can specifically be applied to all WW2 reenactments and in a broader sense to all war reenactments. I don't get what makes it particular to German reenactment forums especially when as far as I am aware people there are very cognisant of the attrocities. I didn't look for a fight, just did not understand this specification.
carpe diem I am very aware that the video can (and should (as I stated)) be applied to all countries actions and reenactors. However, after spending a good chunk of time in this hobby and in those message boards I find that there are a lot more people that feel like they have to justify the actions of Nazi Germany and the men who served it.
@@morganchaput5376 Ok, I can't argue with your experience, I find it said, that if the actual country accepts responsibility and doesn't excuse these actions, reenactors would choose to do so.
Always be sure to prepare your self for an unskipable long sidequest of "But what about when The West/America invaded (random country)" any time you critisize Serbia, Russia, China or any "Anti-Western" country
Wow, I'm favoriting this video. This is a clear and concise explanation I've been trying to get across for years, you're so articulate and layout everything. Thank you so much for uploading this!
Except it only leaves the two guys blind because the whole point of the Hammurabic legal code (where the saying "eye-for-an-eye" originates from) was to put an end to autistic blood feuds between families by enacting a proportionate justice against the direct perpetrator of crimes.
@@danielmorris6584That makes sense. That would have deterred some of the harsh sentences that have been used at times throughout history, such as hanging for stealing anything worth more than a shilling. Just goes to show the importance of context.
It's kind of a stupid quote if you really think about it. As Daniel Morris said, it was actually intended as a moderating factor in ancient punishment. Back then, it was common for a thief to be executed. Today we would consider such a sentence to be absurdly harsh. So to instead require him to compensate his victim for the value of what he took from them under 'eye for an eye' can be seen a moral innovation. Another thing to consider is that it is acknowledging the fact that not all criminals pose to same threat to society. A man who pickpockets is a criminal, and so is a man who murders children. But the former is obviously not nearly the same threat to the public as the latter. The child murderer is put to death in order to protect future victims he may claim, while the thief is taught that crime doesn't pay. So the intent is to dish out measured punishment. Those who are minor criminals are not brutalised, while those who are twisted and dangerous do not get off lightly. It ensures people are made to take responsibility for what they have done, and specifically what _they_ have done, not for a broad notion of 'general criminality' with a blanket consequence for all, as was often the case historically. The only reason this concept has become controversial today is because of its supposed Biblical origins, a literal interpretation of it (that an eye gouger would have his eye gouged, which absolutely was not the intention in most cases; it's metaphorical), or opposition to the death penalty, which the term is often used to justify (ironic considering the original intention behind it was to _reduce_ death sentences). But in reality we still employ the reasoning behind this concept in our modern justice system, where punishments are proportional to the offense for which a defendant is found guilty. Far from 'blinding the world', it was very much an improvement over true 'blind' justice that treated all criminals the same.
As a sociology student, this video is extremely important. Often times historical sociology (especially pertaining to race) can help us understand why horrible and oppressive systems were conserved for long periods of time. However, this understanding should never ever be viewed as justification. In fact, it's purpose is almost always to understand how these systems came about and were around so long in order to AVOID and PREVENT them in the future.
Couldn't agree more. The thing that really upsets me is that some crimes and even a sizeable part of history (very often not concerning european countries) tends to be overlooked or conveniently forgotten, allowing some to don the vest of the "good guys" where in actual fact their history proves they are just as "bad" if not worse as those at whom they keep pointing their fingers.
Brandon I agree with you but never forgot the point being What About Isms. When we look back at WWII, we must understand what the war is and never forget both what good and bad came from it. If you are a citizens of the winning side, you know you won, you know why you won, and you must not forget that your side fought the war just as honorable and dishonorable as the other side. There were Allied War Crime, the Allies were brutal and cruel too. This must never forget.
Tankies and/or Wehraboos referring to "their" side as "we" - like any of them had any part in the success of either side before their respective downfalls (this also reminds me of a Mitchell & Webb sketch about football fans)
Watching this video in March, 2022, one month into the Russo-Ukrainian war, I can't help but agree with you that war crime don't justify war crime. And a historical event, viewed by Putin as a historical tragedy, does not justify the acts of war to "correct" the said event. I have watched Channel 4 interview where Matt Frei has a conversation with a Russian politician named Dmitry. I am disgusted by the response from Dmitry when he is asked by Matt if the sin of the Iraq War justify the on-going Russo-Ukraine war. Dmitry said yes it does justify the war which drives Matt into fury and Matt told Dmitry to tell his statement to the 10 year old girl that is killed in Mariupol during the siege. Whataboutism is used to disgusting degree by the Russian to justify this war.
@@masonharvath-gerrans832 How is that disgusting logic? Disgusting logic is saying that America should be able to punish and sanction anybody it sees fit to without ever having to answer for their own crimes. Why was America never sanctioned for Vietnam? Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? Guantanamo Bay? Why didn't any western "democracy" attempt to punish or economically isolate America in literally any way whatsoever for all the crimes its committed that are apparently sooo bad that Russia must face the full judgement of the western world combined despite only doing a fraction of what America has?
Colleague at work mentioned her dad was tank commander during WW2 and her mother worked for "some" tractor plant in Stalingrad. I had some follow up questions for her but sadly never got meet her parents :)
I had an elderly lady as a customer in my taxi a few months ago who had been 8 during the fire bombings of the Kriegsmarine docks and surrounding towns near Hamburg during ww2 who relayed her memories of how she had ran from doorway to doorway through the burning town during a raid to the family bomb shelter instead of staying with the teacher and the rest of her class and her mom had spanked her for it out of the mothers own fear when they met in the family shelter and how, when the western allies came so close that the Wermacht fled the town, some of the adult men beat up one of the local grocery store owners for betraying local jews and the people who had tried to save them. And that wasn't even in occupied territory! The same trip, she shared the taxi with an elderly Danish lady whos parents had fled to Sweden in the few hours of chaos just as the nazis occupied Denmark and ran a smuggling route with supplies to the Danish resistance and bringing occational jews and downed allied pilots who'd escaped captivity over to neutral ground.
As someone who’s studied Yugoslavia in WW2, what you’re talking about applies completely. The Germans, Chetniks, Ustasha, and Partisans all committed heinous crimes. Hell what happened to the Danube Swabians after WW2 just shows how awful the new republic was.
Arguments like these even extend to fantasy/sci-fi settings, with the most recent one coming to mind being the One Year War in the Gundam series and which side was justified: the Federation or Zeon. I saw a long list of these arguments from a music video from the series lol; now that I watched this very informative video I can now see these arguments in a new light
Holy shit on a stick those final three videos were bone chillingly good. Like I mean if you ask me those are even better than movies, bc like while those have plot and good cinematic stuff this literally looks like authentic footage that I’d bet aren’t too far from how the battles and combats actually were. No music, no panning shots, no close ups on the characters, granted its pretty obvious that there’d be none of that irl but it just hits so different to see it as it would’ve been. Just screaming and gunshots
I believe that's what the british say, Brandon does seem to speak in a rather transatlantic way, in other words, there are some aspects of both American English and British English.
From a philosophical argument one could make a compelling case for the lack of free will and agency in the drunk driver. One also could point out that one of alcohols main effects is the loss of the ability to think rationally therefore implying that the driver never made an unimpaired, conscious choice. Drunk driving in particular is a somewhat bad example to use because it skirts right up against the nature of responsibility.
A good quote for this is “Cool motive, still murder.” War crimes are never justified. You can empathize with the perpetrators and you can understand the circumstances but war crimes can never be justified.
i think the difference between explanation and justification can tend to be in the language used, which can muddy things considerably, especially when you take interpretation into account, if one uses more emotive language to try and draw the reader into a sense of sympathizing too much with the perpetrator, rather than a more cold, analytical reading of the events can give the impression one is trying to justify rather than explain (that said, it can be a bloody thin line seemingly, which could be a flaw with my interpretation of the issue)
At the same time, expecting someone to be able to convey a subject completely void of emotion and penalise them for failing to do so when it's a context that has had profound negative impact on them at a personal level is completely unreasonable and actively abusive in and of itself.
I’m a former re-enactor (Middle ages) in Australia who was heavily involved with one of the states peak organising bodies. While there was many reasons why I left, the apologetics around the WW2 side (which I will fully concede was the around the SS) made me question my future participation in the 1st instance & finally leave the hobby after 30 odd years. After awhile I became uncomfortable with how flippant it can be for something that’s still within living memory & who political consequences still eco today. Anyway, a comment to a two year old vid that’s still thought provoking.
I agree 100% with this argument about crimes, war crimes, and I even extend it war itself. but the number of times i heard Brandon say "drink dive" was truly painful in a way that makes war crimes seem trivial by comparison.
i remember when acting out such scenes didnt require such lengthy explanation and justification. reenactors are historians. they wish to protray history, the good, the bad, and the ugly. and sometimes you just want to play the bad guy.
@Brandon F. First of all, I like your clips. But one of the problem I have with Reenactment in gnereal and your take on it is that you normally only reenact the "heroic" actions. Even when thinking about the scenes you showed here, the "victims" are still soldiers. Or have you ever reenacted scenes where you simulated rape of women and girls (or men and boys) or just massacred unarmed civilans?
these things happen most of during sieges and soldiers were loose, in ancient times they were times when Generals tried to stop their men from doing it and were killed by their own men. in this mental mindset soldiers are less civilized and more of attack dogs that rampage across the battlefield ubtil they calm down
Great video with some great points, this warrants a viewing by anyone who attempts to justify atrocities with an explanation, especially many online Keyboard warriors.
In essence, explanations can help you understand and live with the consequences of an event but do not make the event objectively right or moral. Feel free to correct me if I have misinterpreted the videos message. On a different note, Very impressed with the footage at the end for an atmospheric and choreographic point of view.
Its fine to empathise with how someone made the wrong decision, but it is still the wrong decision. Its also really important to try and understand why the wrong decision was made, so you can educate and look out for others who may fall down the same path. War is hell, War breaks people. So we either make sure non broken people monitor and guide those who get broken, or better yet, we consign War to the history books and never break young people again.
It's like what Thomas Hardy said; "But though to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children may be morality good enough for divinities, it is scorned by average human nature; and it therefore does not mend the matter."
Justifying actions by similar actions is so clearly hypocritical it's remarkable anyone uses it. Yet it's the only flaccid argument propping up the death penalty in the U.S.
@@vaclavjebavy5118 last resort for the irredeemable (which admittedly begs the question, what circumstances constitute an irreversible mindset of criminality?)
@@anthonyhayes1267 But still, it does take their life away. What difference does it make? I'm not for execution happy courts but it doesn't quite make sense for me to be against it on these grounds. It also begs the question whether the legal system is about punishment and compensation or mere detainment.
Another thing to consider is that the victims of military reprisals in WW2 were seldom the perpetrators who started it. The woman who were raped weren't the ones slaughtering prisoners in Russia.
The beginning of this video sounds like a grand-slam early 90’s country music hit. Also thank you for your good point. Far too often we fall into the trap of tit for tat or whataboutism to justify atrocity
One common thing about commenting history is that many people think they are explaining when they are seen by others as justifying. There can be many reasons for that. The simplest is when they never acknowledge "their action's side" as an horrible thing and are mostly preoccupied in giving some far context. Instead of readily assuming responsibility, It seem as if they are trying to hide from it or escape it. Another reason is when they begin to take the role of the decision maker and try to say how the decision was the best possible at the time or something similar. Such "experts" deciding about life and death of others as if they were some gods. etc etc I don't care how much explaining you are doing, to me it seem as if you are trying to justify it. Don't tell me it was for the best. Don't tell me you know all about it. I completely agree with all the "Explanation is not Justification" argument you made here. The One thing you forgot. And that is a very important one for commenting about history. Never forget that we "modern people" are not qualified to make any moral judgement about what happened then, unless we admit that we are ignorant of the times and situation, and that we are making those judgements with our own "unhistorical" morals. If one is to make some judgement, then be sincere and humble in our knowledge. That means that i am allowed to be disgusted by such "historical" thing as war crimes, genocide, slavery and by too many things done by those people. Why wouldn't i be? I am being sincere to my own morals and world view. But i am surely and completely hypocrite if i take any high stand about it, when i live tuck away safe and sound hundred of years of history ( technology, etc) away from them. Those "enlightened moral people" who take the high moral ground about others in history can only disgust me, sometimes as much as some of the worst of those historical monsters.
You have raised many interesting and thought provoking points, especially the part about whataboutism and our tendencies to mistake explanations for justifications. I have a real-world example of both. France has yet to apologize for the war crimes it carried during its reign in Algeria, especially the 8 may 1945 massacres ( As Nazi Germany fell, and victory announced, the Algerian people took to the streets both to celebrate and to proclaim their freedom, France high on victory and scared it would lose its foothold in North Africa, committed heinous acts of mass murder ) and the use of rape/torture/execution/encampment to thwart the Algerian revolution later on. Naturally when a French official talked of Turkey's ( ex-Ottoman Empire) genocide of the Armenian people, Erdogen ( Turkey's President) raved about France's hypocrisy and their refusal to apologize for their own crimes in Algeria. It was as childish as ' no, you did this. ' and ' you started first. ' what was demoralizing is seeing friends and family fall over themselves trying to defend Erdogen while having no fucking idea of what happened to the Armenian people. What happened to them and to us shouldn't happen to anyone regardless of the the motives. Regardless of allegiance and alliance. Evil is rarely a tangible, easy to point to ideology or religion or people, but it is clear as fuck every time a state/military tries to justify genocide, torture and systematic deportation of people.
Like you said there were reasons people did things throughout history. What I think some people are getting confused about is the explanation as to why the historical figure justified an action doesn’t mean the modern speaker is justifying the same action. For example let’s take operation Barbarossa. If I were to be at a public gathering speaking about that specific event. I am explaining the courses of actions that were taken that led up to during and the aftermath of decisions and justifications. That does not mean I am justifying the German invasion of the Soviet Union. I am simply explaining it. The problem now is not really speaking about it. It’s the twitchy trigger fingers of one side or the other going “your defending the actions of this side!” Which is the problem. The discussion is being closed off. Many historians can and do see explanation is not modern justification. But it’s those who don’t see that which are causing a problem
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
In Summery, Cool Motive, Still Murder
Yeah
*summary
It's still really fun
It’s not really a “Cool” motive it’s more of an “Understandable” motive.
@@Balls1414 it's a quote from Brooklyn 99 where a perp "did it for love" to which Jake Peralta (the main character) answered "cool motive, still murder"
People forget that empathy doesn't mean agreement, just understanding. Finding a person's actions inexcusable or even unforgivable isn't mutually exclusive with understanding why that person committed those actions and considered them acceptable.
Brandon F: Attorney at Law
Congrats on hitting 100k Mr Atun Shei, you grew faster in 2 months than Brandon did in half a year
@@goldenbough56 the fickle tides of the algorithm rises some and destroys others.
@@ieuanhunt552 yes
Oh hey
You speak of law? I shalle deliver you to the magistrate located in the court in the shire in which you dwell.
First heard this concept when I was 14 from a criminal psychologist.
"Pity the person for the suffering that led to these actions, but that doesn't absolve them of their crimes. You can understand why but that doesn't make it any less horrible"
Damn, what crime did the psychologist commit?
@@piggypoo Not a psychologist who is a criminal, it's a psychologist studying the psyche of a criminal
Y’all talking about war crimes
Japan has entered the chat
And America says hi
Yeah, without undermined what Third reich were doing serious war crimes in Europe. Imperial Japan were doing somewhat very brutal thing across Asian yet They considered They war victim and not apologize what They had been done in the past.
Maxwell Clark japan: War crime is not in our dictionary what that wait I have thing to do
@@gededeogiri3325 well said
Germany remains the only country that took responsibility for war crimes in that war. FACT
You forgot the magic words, Brandon. "No Reverend, they're redcoats, they deserve it." :P
A very good discussion. I have said many times that people can be both victims and perpetrators. On an individual level, we all go through stuff in life. But we owe it to outselves and the trauma we experienced to stop that cycle. The freedom we enjoy can only exist so long as the freedom of others is preserved. Depriving people of their lives (the ultimate deprivation of freedom) is essentially denying our own freedom.
>The freedom we enjoy can only exist so long as the freedom of others is preserved
That is often the problem, though. It's really hard to "project" freedom unto others when one is not free themselves. That's why there are high crime and low crime countries, areas etc. I would say this applies on international level too, that's what revanchism is essentially.
@@Loromir17 I guess I more apply that philosophy on an individual basis. I rarely, historically, address entire countries or groups at all when it comes to morality. I endeavor to analyze individual sources, but dislike making broad generalizations. I also think that it is hard to necessarily define freedom. I still stand by the fact that killing a person is definitely despriving them of ultimate freedom. But on other levels, freedom may mean very different things to people. To some, freedom is the safety and security while to others, it is liberty of action. They are both right if that is what they truly value.
Very eloquently put
Deep!
w8 so if you murder someone the police will kidnap you and imprison you...so why they have a right to do this to you?
You deny someone their humanity and their freedom, and they will be willing to commit unspeakable acts. His cause to fight is just, his cause to murder is inexcusable.
we kill to survive, we hurt to make examples. we are animals and our made up rules do not apply to people who have decided revolt away from them. judging what a desperate man/woman does while we sit safe and warm is narcissistic and wasteful. better to understand why something happens and try to prevent it, than judge someone for actions in a situation that we have never and hopefully will never experience. punishment has its place, but instead of assigning blame we must strive to keep those types of situations from happening on mass ever again.
@@davidmccormick7419 Part of trying to prevent these atrocities from ever happening again is not trying to say those atrocities were any less bad because of their reasons for happening. If you have a group of people who believe it is okay to murder another group because of past infractions, then you end up with more atrocities, not less.
@@davidmccormick7419 So if what you just said led to someone harming one of my loved ones would that justify me seeking vengeance on you out of desperation?
@@weebishusername9288 i feel like you only read the first sentence. but ill try to clarify. if there is a group of people actively trying to make you or, your family, or culture group not exist anymore then you have the right to resist with any and all means. and regular people who have never experienced that do not have the right to pass judgment on desperate people because there is no way of knowing how we would act in there place
@@davidmccormick7419 I know people that have been that still did the right thing, and they experienced the same or worse (I don't know anyone specifically I am just referring to a historical context)
A war crime most people tend to forget about is the fort pillow massacre where the Tennessee brigade massacred a all black union regiment that afterwards Nathaniel Bedford forrest even criticized the event calling it a disgrace
Good to know someone remembers that particular travesty.
You know you're f**ked up when the founder of the KKK criticizes your atrocity.
@@bradanklauer8926 I want to say his unit was the one responsible. Hence his nasty reputation.
@@TitusCastiglione1503 Okay, I don't know why I didn't consider that earlier.
Nathan Bedford Forrest LEAD the Massacre - so I doubt the ever called it a "Disgrace"
"Nuance is dead and we have killed it." - Social Media
Geneva Convention more like Geneva suggestion, okay i go now.
Geneva what? I thought Conventions were cancelled this year?!
Janiva Convention? I cant even spell Janeeva! Double tap that bastard.
_"Do not speak to me of rules! This is war!! This is not a game of cricket."_ *Colonel Saito*
I genuinely laughed at this. Thank you.
More like Geneva rejection. Sorry but I had to do it.
An often overlooked part of historic interpretation that can be difficult to talk about, and when it is, is often discussed with a lack of honesty and integrity. Thanks for having both.
The footage shows the claustrophobic, desperate and depressive nature of urban combat. It’d be all too easy to lose your mind when left to fight for your life in a situation like that. I think you guys did a good job.
Thank you, I’ve been accused of “trying to excuse” things in the past when all I was doing was offering context
"Would you like a lesson in the rules of war? Or perhaps your children would."
- Colonel Tavington circa 1781
first lesson rules dont exist
Brandon: *uploads a 20 minute video that isn't about historical accuracy*
Me: *grabs popcorn* Well, this is a new one.
On the other hand, the problem is that when you're just trying to give an explanation for something, context or trying to correct preestablished believes, you're instantly having labels put on you for justifying warcrimes...
Regrettably, our society equates explanation with rationalization and excuse-making.
I think I read something similiar to that on an essay on how a lot of people nowadays perceive the Germans during WW2 as purely evil, it ended with a quite important summarization that I'll try to paraphrase:
"Most people see the SS or even the Wehrmacht as Monsters with no feelings that were evil in every way, with no justification and no empathy. If similiar events were to repeat that lead up to these atrocities, these people won't be looking for the same causes or humans, they'll be looking for Monsters."
Quick reenactment question: do you wear ear protection for a skit like that? Gunfire is hell on the ears under any circumstances, but indoors like that especially so.
Most people at the Stalingrad event wear ear plugs, yes. Though not at most others.
Hopefully not 3M Combat Arms two way earplugs.
@@BrandonF Do you know if the soldiers of WW2 did wear any kind of ear protection? Or did they just took it as it was. Did many soldiers suffered from hearing loss?
Nearly every reenactor with firearms wears ear protection. Too darn important and simple not to.
Historically I recall only artillery men would have ear protection, tankers/air crews would have radio headsets. Even up to today, most foot soldiers won't, so they can hear the enemy coming better.
Artillery= titanic boom= insta deaf artillery men
@@j.h-j5j I know that Germans had hearing protection in the form of Ohropax ear plugs, but I'm not sure how commonly they were used, and I think it was a privately purchased item as opposed to being issued. I believe that in the German Soldbuch, or paybook/ID book, there was a mention of ear protection as a special issue item for men who had suffered ear injuries, however I don't have my Soldbuch copy available right now so I can't confirm that.
0:00 to 4:00 Main reason I like this channel: you can't just watch this if you can't appreciate history and connecting ideas.
Not gonna lie, it tilts me just a bit how he keeps saying "drink driving".
Maybe it’s some silly regional thing.
@@fuzzydunlop7928 Not in the USA. It's "drunk driving", "driving under the influence", "DUI", "driving impaired", or the like.
It's how it is most commonly referred to over here in the UK, and he does play an Englishman rather a lot.
"it tilts me"
What an interesting phrase. I'm definitely using that now!
brandon are you tackling modern issues and current affairs now? can you do the blight of stubbing your toe on a badly placed wardrobe next?
I'll put it onto the list
Don't keep your hopes up, his list is very, very very long.
True, however this topic is clearly of paramount importance.
That a war crime though
Uh... that intro was depressing.
As a Black American Man, I totally appreciated your artful dipping of the toe into troubling, modern day waters. It is my wish and prayer that those who need to hear and understand your well thought out argument will find this video. As a retired 20 year Navy man, I salute you, sir😊👍
I often get this problem from the opposite end. Rather than people using explanations as a justification; I have a problem where people mistake my explanations as being the same as me justifying things. And when I explain that I am not justifying, I am just explaining; they seem get really upset that I am willing to explain something I don't think is justified.
This happens to me on the daily with my s/o I am not justifying my actions but explaining why I thought what I did was the right action to take
Yeah that happens to me to, to the point where I don’t really talk about that kind of thing with people.
I watch a lot of war films but unlike most, I don’t watch to cheer on a particular side or to feel good about the violence, I watch for the very reason you wanted us to watch those (very well made) clips. To understand and acknowledge the madness that was the horrors of humanities past and to recognize how individuals on all ends felt and what they experienced. Without recognition and understanding of humanities past and the violence that erupts from the human condition that is feelings, we can never find ourself to truly judge what goes on today with sound judgement and without bias. Thank you for this video btw, I find you explain everything very thoroughly and managed to only increase the value of these clips 😊 keep up the great work.
I feel your statement on war crimes against civilian populations is spot on, just because one side committed atrocities against civilians dosnt excuse it for them to do the same, no one wins in war (even the winning side loses in even the most lopsided of wars, people lose loved ones even in small conflicts), although the scary thing these days is the line between combatant and civilian blurs during the modern asymmetric wars if the last few decades, the footage was amazing, have you considered makeing a feture length film?
I was the tall Russian that got beat up at the end of the second clip
Thanks for not stepping on my hand
This talk reminds me of an old dutch book series set in Nazi occupied Holland in where the main protagonist's teacher is a Nazi sympathizer bc he hates the Brits for what they did to his family in the 2nd Boer war, and so bc the Nazis are fighting the Brits the teacher is friendly to the Nazis. In the end I think the teacher get killed by Dutch freedom fighters but its interesting as the story does as you say maybe pity the teacher but it still 100% makes it clear that the teacher is one of the bad guys.
Unrelated, but a funny ww2 reenacting story.
My German camp was between a US armor unit to the left and a Red army unit to the right. It was a January, 1945 event.
It was the most historically accurate I've ever felt...
The worst is when people think the Wehrmacht is innocent from war crimes
Yeah, I hear that a lot. "It was the SS doing the war crimes, the Wehrmacht were just normal soldiers serving their country!" I mean I'm sure the average SS volunteer was more motivated by Nazi ideology than the average Wehrmacht conscript, but the army was ultimately still the primarily tool used in the conquest and subjugation of Europe, and they were certainly doing some appalling things.
Which is to be expected of course; pretty much every army commits war crimes in pretty much every war. Even the military of a liberal democracy like the USA has committed many war crimes from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. So the idea that the German Army in the context of WW2 was somehow pure and honourable is just ludicrous; the entire German military forces were committed to Nazi goals.
The other classic is, "Well they did commit war crimes but only because they were forced to." Members of the Wehrmacht could say no and some did say no, Himmler specifically created an order against forcing the Wehrmacht to take part.
@@someguy3766 Yes, that is just one of the many Nazi myths which are taken as gospel in regions such as America - mainly due to the Cold War. In order to distance themselves from the crimes of the Nazis, the generals of the Wehrmacht claimed that they were innocent and that it was the SS who were doing all of the nasty stuff, surprisingly this worked due to the political reality of the time. Another myth is that of Soviet "wave attacks" which, again, is the result of lies from the Wehrmacht commanders which many people took as fact. The Wehrmacht commanders, unsurprisingly, wanted to portray themselves as competent and skilled generals, as many would go on to serve the new western regime. They did their best to portray the Soviets as a bunch of idiot subhumans, who blindly ran into gunfire in the millions, and that their defeat was not actually caused by their own shortcomings. This is also part of the reason why America (ironically enough) has far more Nazi sympathizers than Germany, due to this anti-Soviet / anti-Russian sentiment.
I don’t think anyone who’s had cursory glance at the history of the Eastern front would say that. The war crimes committed by both sides at every level is stunning in the worst kind of way.
@@redacted5052 you would be surprised by the amount of wehraboos you see on the internet
"Remember its only a war crime if you lose"
-sun tzu, probably
Joke aside Sun Tzu said that you should treat POV good and give enemy soldiers Money to encourage desertion
nah
its Russians
Dresden and Tokyo have entered the chat.
Or if they are people. 😉
You know what you're saying means a lot. I don't see much of your content, but I know it's there. I spend my time looking at certain things of history on Wikipedia and left with a sense of understanding.
(edit: I removed the SW reference to make the message clearer).
In all seriousness, that was one of the best reenactments I've ever seen, but also one of the most chilling. I've always wondered why humanity needs violence to solve its problems when we can just sit down and set aside our differences. This video makes me ask myself if a distinction can be made between "necessary conflict"-from a certain point of view-and needless bloodshed. Does our species really need to resort to violence against our own kind as a means of survival? If so, what purpose does it serve? To defend oneself, to acquire land and resources, to have a purpose in life? How does one justify such actions against other fellow human beings? These are questions that have been asked since the dawn of mankind and will continue to be asked for eternity.
Yo that execution reenactment was more powerful than I was expecting, good job to those involved.
Having been a whataboutist when I was a teen, this is probably the best reasoning in why that what about ism is wrong.
Context doesn't make things not wrong anymore, it makes their actions somewhat understandable. Or more accurately removes the monster element to the villain and understand why they did such monstrous things. The villain is still the villain, actions are still wrong.
M8, your footage isn't going to cause someone to believe In extremist world views
If they believe in such ideologies or indeed not, this isn't going to change something so engraved
What the fuck are you on about?
@@spitandfire he's on about Brandon being worried that these skits would have the idiots that support and even worship either faction take it as a "my side is right". It's not. The Eastern Front was a fucking bloodbath and horrible, look at Poland. First the Germans killed off any form of leadership, thinking, and medical so that they could "condition" the poles into being a slave class, while the Soviets did the same but along the lines of political bias. Poland was raped, nothing else can describe it better
For being reenactors and not professional stuntmen you all did very well! The sounds especially were so visceral and terrifying.
I agree but explanations can help understand what happened and how they can make things better to stop future instances...atleast thats how i see it. I could be totally stupid and not understand. Maybe my heart is to many sizes to big for the world
Explanations are absolutely worthwhile to understand and study. We just need to be clear about what they are, is all.
@@BrandonF absolutely underviewed comment, as much as I understand the rage of the red army upon entering Berlin, as some places, in such as in Belarus, where 1/4th of the population was killed, liberating some of the worst concentration camps. It is completely unsurprising that reprisals had occured.
But after all of that being said, it wasn't at ALL justice, committing crimes against those who have laid down their arms, or even civilians doesn't undo the crime that caused the reprisal, nor does it, in the overwhelming majority of cases, punish the perpetrator of the original crime
Say all you want unicron but there’s still no excuse for slapping Cybertron with your hand in 86. I don’t care if the Autobots said mean things.
Civil Warfare I take what I like to think is an Engineer’s view of Justice: those lives are lost and can never return, just as those killed by the Hyatt Regency walkway or the Bhopal leak or Chernobyl. For those victims, there can be no justice. But if we learn from them, we can build a just world for the future.
If drug use is causing a lot of crime in a neighborhood the government should try to stop the drug problem. It doesn’t matter that it’s still the persons fault you can prevent crime and improve health by stopping the drug problem.
Black people are oppressed in the US. "Oh, but what about Irish people? My great grandma was an indentured servant! I live in a million dollar house because of hard work"
Thanks for 2020 Corona
There’s always the “Yeah but black people weren’t the only ones enslaved in all of history!” people. It’s true, it’s just an irrelevant whataboutism.
I was on a urban combat exercise. I was first. saw two enemies sitting resting at a wall. my adrenaline filled brain thought that one of their weapons moved. so i did a failure drill on the first. the other did something that i couldn´t see and I heard shoots fired. so the other one went the same way. I got the question why I shoot. lets say as much. shit happens in urban combat. It´s not like you have to be evil to do things that looks kind of bad. when looking from the outside.
I wholeheartedly agree. There's no justification for war crimes under any circumstance. The Soviets, Germans, and Allies all commited horrific acts with WW2 being the bloodiest time in human history.
I personally get frustrated by the West glossing over their own crimes. The biggest being the deployment of atomic weapons against civilian targets in the Pacific theatre. Some how it's not considered a war crime to many as an aircraft was used rather than a gas chamber or rifle barrel. In the UK we had "bomber" Harris who advocated carpet bombing against German civilians and was allowed to do so for a long while before he was instructed to stop. Some how the fact that the Germans were bombing our cities means to many it's justified, despite it having almost zero impact on the war effort. Blood for the sake of blood.
The Japanese also committed war crimes
it wasn't a war crime in ww2 context because it was legal at that time ,strategic bombing wasn't ban until 1949 and dresden wasn't just bomb for shit and giggle,the city got 110 factory producing good for nazi war effort and 2 railway ub that were used for logistic of the army group center and it has an impact ,look how the prouction got down in 1945
Divine Sausage if you go looking for trouble, you'll find it.
@@bigyin2586 And I still think that dresden was horriblebut when talking about strategic bombing,we need to take in account the military significance of the city
@@thebunkerparodie6368 But would you also say that the bombing of London and other English cities also be justified for their military significance?
Well done tackling a difficult topic. History and war is seldom simple and clean. Rather complicated and bloody. Yet it is discussions like these that need to happen, lest we forget and repeat atrocities of the past. Keep up the good work!
Thank you, Brandon. Thank you to all those who worked with you on this. I hope this is seen by as many people as possible, especially younger folks. "You did it first!" or "You did it worse!" can never justify any behavior. I don't know if you are a Dr. Who fan, but there was a 2-part story that touched on this. "The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion" with Peter Capaldi as The Doctor. Both sides had their hands over The Button and wouldn't back down. How the Doctor showed the futility of fighting for grievance, reprisal and 'what-about-ism' is amazing and thought provoking. It's worth the watch.
"What do you mean i cant kill German Civilians fleeing my Army?"- Stalin
@Aethelstan of England Mao Tse Tong has entered the chat
you can kill them. they are easy targets, actually. You are simply not allowed to kill them. I am kidding, of course.
But I sometimes find it weird that can't = mustn't. F.e. "Sorry, you can't smoke here" (while the person is already smoking there)
Bullets cost money, use your hands
@@phifflon Or your bayonets, they are there for a reason.
@@istvansipos9940 im guessing you're first language isn't english? Because it is a truly weird language. I dont even try to use all the correct grammar rules when writing or typing since it would take way longer and would not matter at all.
I loved the video and the topic. But DUDE. That reenactment was flippin awesome. Well done, all around!
Nice one Comrade Brandon.
A good argument explaining "just because I'm explaining a situation doen't mean I'm condoning or endorsing a particular mob" and 'Moral Equivalancy' being used to excuse war crimes (which we're still uncomfortable with discussing in the UK about the Bomber Command campaign- "You annihilated Dresden" "Yeah, but they flattened Coventry and they're Nazis"-).
Which of course doesn't avoid the fact the Allies were fighting Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan etc, for the people it was a war of national/personal survival. "Oh, half my extended family are dead, we're up against a back alley with a broken bottle against our throats, the skies are dark with bombers raining horror on our homes and if they come here I'm dead because I'm on a list..."
Yeah, Total War/World War/Civil War/War tends to wipe out a lot of 'comfortable' assumptions about good guys/bad guys. Though if a screaming horde of Waffen-SS appeared on my street I think I'd instantly know who the bad guys were.
The fact is, War is a sign of faliure, War is a marker of stupidity, War itself a crime.
On a lighter topic, if that's possible, quite liked the re-enactments. The first reminded me of the end scene of 'Come & See' (1985). It's nice (!) to see re-enactors doing World War Two who aren't fat, middle aged blokes pretending to be frontline troops (which we do have a problem with in the UK with one notorious bunch of fat geezers doing Waffen-SS Liebenstandarte reactments who are basically neo-nazis who delightfully got kicked out of 'Salute' -the UK's biggest wargaming show in London- a few years back when the organisers went, "You're not here for the history are you? Fuck Off!") . Plus that one guy who does that death fall at the end has a future in stunt work.
Cheers!
Well Dresden was a military target, and the ~25,000 dead in its flattening completely pair in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and the 76,000 civilian dead because it had to be taken conventionally. There was no resistance in Dresden and actually saved more of the people’s lives than not bombing the city would have.
The problem is with most countries, the USA definitely included, the vast majority of people think, “It’s okay when we do it,” even as they deny it happened or think up excuses for it. The truth is, they don’t care it’s a crime when it’s their side.
I think that the thing a lot of people are missing with system theory is that just because you can explain, understand, and maybe not even being able to blame someone entirely for their horrible actions, does not necessarily stop it from it being a horrible act and thus should not have happened. A good reason why we want independent 3rd parties as the judge as such in the court.
I adore this video because I like to have these types of conversations with people. I like to talk about the reasons behind people's horrible actions not to free them of blame but to help understand how good people can be driven to do bad things. If we can look closely with a mature and balanced view at things we hate and condemn it will help us not commit these same acts.
There may be no justification for any of these things, but I've always boiled it down to this; when your just after being in a high stress situation, seeing your comrades die around you and you've already killed a good number of the enemy in that combat and they finally surrender. They've already killed some of your friends, so what is another extra few bodies added to the pile by that point? It might even make you feel 'better' in that moment because you've exacted justice for your fallen comrades.
Its still not a justifiable action by societal or rules of war standards. But in that moment you personally feel justified in your actions. And really, that is all that matters to people.
It's still not ok though, and that doesn't include all the rape and murder of civilians, they did nothing to hurt the Russian soldiers.
@@masteryoda7207 Never said it was ok. It is what it is.
@@masteryoda7207 Who the hell said anything about Russia...?
there are military law in my army that is.
1.Military personnel can refuse to an order that is ethically wrong, illegally wrong morally wrong.
if that individual personnel still follow those kind of order or willing to do so, those individual is guilty of crime.
so "i was follow an order" excuse will invalid to use.
Excellent take, this should be a PSA on all reenacting forums (German especially)!
Why "German especially" Germany is one of the few countries that own up to the atrocities and war crimes that were committed. On the other hand you have presidents of other countries threatening war crimes and calling the Geneva conventions a problem: “The problem is we have the Geneva conventions, all sorts of rules and regulations, so the soldiers are afraid to fight.”
carpe diem “on all reenacting forums” is a key part of that sentence. I don’t know where in my comment I mentioned anything relating to what you are talking about (without my words being taken out of context).
@@morganchaput5376 I just didn't get why it would be German reenacting forums especially. When the video can specifically be applied to all WW2 reenactments and in a broader sense to all war reenactments. I don't get what makes it particular to German reenactment forums especially when as far as I am aware people there are very cognisant of the attrocities. I didn't look for a fight, just did not understand this specification.
carpe diem I am very aware that the video can (and should (as I stated)) be applied to all countries actions and reenactors. However, after spending a good chunk of time in this hobby and in those message boards I find that there are a lot more people that feel like they have to justify the actions of Nazi Germany and the men who served it.
@@morganchaput5376 Ok, I can't argue with your experience, I find it said, that if the actual country accepts responsibility and doesn't excuse these actions, reenactors would choose to do so.
Always be sure to prepare your self for an unskipable long sidequest of "But what about when The West/America invaded (random country)" any time you critisize Serbia, Russia, China or any "Anti-Western" country
Wow, I'm favoriting this video. This is a clear and concise explanation I've been trying to get across for years, you're so articulate and layout everything. Thank you so much for uploading this!
Do you have some sort of extension to your youtube? Cus theres no way to favourite a video, unless you made a playlist called favourites
An eye for an eye leaves the World blind. I believe that's the adage .
Another reason to get over the vengeful desert religion that teaches such idiocy.
Except it only leaves the two guys blind because the whole point of the Hammurabic legal code (where the saying "eye-for-an-eye" originates from) was to put an end to autistic blood feuds between families by enacting a proportionate justice against the direct perpetrator of crimes.
@@danielmorris6584That makes sense. That would have deterred some of the harsh sentences that have been used at times throughout history, such as hanging for stealing anything worth more than a shilling. Just goes to show the importance of context.
It's kind of a stupid quote if you really think about it. As Daniel Morris said, it was actually intended as a moderating factor in ancient punishment. Back then, it was common for a thief to be executed. Today we would consider such a sentence to be absurdly harsh. So to instead require him to compensate his victim for the value of what he took from them under 'eye for an eye' can be seen a moral innovation.
Another thing to consider is that it is acknowledging the fact that not all criminals pose to same threat to society. A man who pickpockets is a criminal, and so is a man who murders children. But the former is obviously not nearly the same threat to the public as the latter. The child murderer is put to death in order to protect future victims he may claim, while the thief is taught that crime doesn't pay.
So the intent is to dish out measured punishment. Those who are minor criminals are not brutalised, while those who are twisted and dangerous do not get off lightly. It ensures people are made to take responsibility for what they have done, and specifically what _they_ have done, not for a broad notion of 'general criminality' with a blanket consequence for all, as was often the case historically.
The only reason this concept has become controversial today is because of its supposed Biblical origins, a literal interpretation of it (that an eye gouger would have his eye gouged, which absolutely was not the intention in most cases; it's metaphorical), or opposition to the death penalty, which the term is often used to justify (ironic considering the original intention behind it was to _reduce_ death sentences).
But in reality we still employ the reasoning behind this concept in our modern justice system, where punishments are proportional to the offense for which a defendant is found guilty. Far from 'blinding the world', it was very much an improvement over true 'blind' justice that treated all criminals the same.
As a sociology student, this video is extremely important. Often times historical sociology (especially pertaining to race) can help us understand why horrible and oppressive systems were conserved for long periods of time. However, this understanding should never ever be viewed as justification. In fact, it's purpose is almost always to understand how these systems came about and were around so long in order to AVOID and PREVENT them in the future.
Couldn't agree more. The thing that really upsets me is that some crimes and even a sizeable part of history (very often not concerning european countries) tends to be overlooked or conveniently forgotten, allowing some to don the vest of the "good guys" where in actual fact their history proves they are just as "bad" if not worse as those at whom they keep pointing their fingers.
Brandon I agree with you but never forgot the point being What About Isms. When we look back at WWII, we must understand what the war is and never forget both what good and bad came from it. If you are a citizens of the winning side, you know you won, you know why you won, and you must not forget that your side fought the war just as honorable and dishonorable as the other side. There were Allied War Crime, the Allies were brutal and cruel too. This must never forget.
Tankies and/or Wehraboos referring to "their" side as "we" - like any of them had any part in the success of either side before their respective downfalls (this also reminds me of a Mitchell & Webb sketch about football fans)
Watching this video in March, 2022, one month into the Russo-Ukrainian war, I can't help but agree with you that war crime don't justify war crime. And a historical event, viewed by Putin as a historical tragedy, does not justify the acts of war to "correct" the said event.
I have watched Channel 4 interview where Matt Frei has a conversation with a Russian politician named Dmitry. I am disgusted by the response from Dmitry when he is asked by Matt if the sin of the Iraq War justify the on-going Russo-Ukraine war. Dmitry said yes it does justify the war which drives Matt into fury and Matt told Dmitry to tell his statement to the 10 year old girl that is killed in Mariupol during the siege. Whataboutism is used to disgusting degree by the Russian to justify this war.
It doesn't justify the war but it does disqualify the U.S. from taking action or expressing condemnation
@@SefirothPHthat’s just false. By that utterly disgusting logic, no one could hold anyone accountable
@@masonharvath-gerrans832 How is that disgusting logic? Disgusting logic is saying that America should be able to punish and sanction anybody it sees fit to without ever having to answer for their own crimes. Why was America never sanctioned for Vietnam? Korea? Iraq? Afghanistan? Guantanamo Bay? Why didn't any western "democracy" attempt to punish or economically isolate America in literally any way whatsoever for all the crimes its committed that are apparently sooo bad that Russia must face the full judgement of the western world combined despite only doing a fraction of what America has?
I just want to say, those reenactors are amazing. Great work from everyone, it's incredible how well they're able to do this
Colleague at work mentioned her dad was tank commander during WW2 and her mother worked for "some" tractor plant in Stalingrad. I had some follow up questions for her but sadly never got meet her parents :)
I had an elderly lady as a customer in my taxi a few months ago who had been 8 during the fire bombings of the Kriegsmarine docks and surrounding towns near Hamburg during ww2 who relayed her memories of how she had ran from doorway to doorway through the burning town during a raid to the family bomb shelter instead of staying with the teacher and the rest of her class and her mom had spanked her for it out of the mothers own fear when they met in the family shelter and how, when the western allies came so close that the Wermacht fled the town, some of the adult men beat up one of the local grocery store owners for betraying local jews and the people who had tried to save them.
And that wasn't even in occupied territory!
The same trip, she shared the taxi with an elderly Danish lady whos parents had fled to Sweden in the few hours of chaos just as the nazis occupied Denmark and ran a smuggling route with supplies to the Danish resistance and bringing occational jews and downed allied pilots who'd escaped captivity over to neutral ground.
That’s pretty crazy, how they met must be a wild story
You shouldve said "drunk horse riding"
*Drink horse riding
Well you see officer it is not my fault the horse and I were both drunk!
As someone who’s studied Yugoslavia in WW2, what you’re talking about applies completely. The Germans, Chetniks, Ustasha, and Partisans all committed heinous crimes. Hell what happened to the Danube Swabians after WW2 just shows how awful the new republic was.
*talks about war crimes
Japan to Germany and the Soviet Union in ww2: don’t be suspicious, don’t give us away
America and Britain are innocent right?
Very much appreciated the videos at the end and the work and care put into them. They do complent the subject addressed quite well.
Arguments like these even extend to fantasy/sci-fi settings, with the most recent one coming to mind being the One Year War in the Gundam series and which side was justified: the Federation or Zeon. I saw a long list of these arguments from a music video from the series lol; now that I watched this very informative video I can now see these arguments in a new light
Holy shit on a stick those final three videos were bone chillingly good. Like I mean if you ask me those are even better than movies, bc like while those have plot and good cinematic stuff this literally looks like authentic footage that I’d bet aren’t too far from how the battles and combats actually were. No music, no panning shots, no close ups on the characters, granted its pretty obvious that there’d be none of that irl but it just hits so different to see it as it would’ve been. Just screaming and gunshots
does he keep saying "Drink-Driving"?
I believe that's what the british say, Brandon does seem to speak in a rather transatlantic way, in other words, there are some aspects of both American English and British English.
Evan Bradley yeah we say drink driving in Britain.
Evan Bradley In the northeast that may be the case, but in the southeast it is not.
From a philosophical argument one could make a compelling case for the lack of free will and agency in the drunk driver. One also could point out that one of alcohols main effects is the loss of the ability to think rationally therefore implying that the driver never made an unimpaired, conscious choice.
Drunk driving in particular is a somewhat bad example to use because it skirts right up against the nature of responsibility.
Such a civil explanation.Thank you.
A good quote for this is “Cool motive, still murder.”
War crimes are never justified. You can empathize with the perpetrators and you can understand the circumstances but war crimes can never be justified.
i think the difference between explanation and justification can tend to be in the language used, which can muddy things considerably, especially when you take interpretation into account, if one uses more emotive language to try and draw the reader into a sense of sympathizing too much with the perpetrator, rather than a more cold, analytical reading of the events can give the impression one is trying to justify rather than explain (that said, it can be a bloody thin line seemingly, which could be a flaw with my interpretation of the issue)
At the same time, expecting someone to be able to convey a subject completely void of emotion and penalise them for failing to do so when it's a context that has had profound negative impact on them at a personal level is completely unreasonable and actively abusive in and of itself.
I didn’t so much mean without emotion as much as without the use of “emotive language” as a writing tool, though you do make a good point
I’m a former re-enactor (Middle ages) in Australia who was heavily involved with one of the states peak organising bodies. While there was many reasons why I left, the apologetics around the WW2 side (which I will fully concede was the around the SS) made me question my future participation in the 1st instance & finally leave the hobby after 30 odd years. After awhile I became uncomfortable with how flippant it can be for something that’s still within living memory & who political consequences still eco today. Anyway, a comment to a two year old vid that’s still thought provoking.
I agree 100% with this argument about crimes, war crimes, and I even extend it war itself. but the number of times i heard Brandon say "drink dive" was truly painful in a way that makes war crimes seem trivial by comparison.
YT: Uploaded 2 sec ago.
Me: I cant belive it!
Nice one, RIP for me it was uploaded 2 mins ago (At the time I just finished cleaning the dishes)
i remember when acting out such scenes didnt require such lengthy explanation and justification.
reenactors are historians. they wish to protray history, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
and sometimes you just want to play the bad guy.
@Brandon F. First of all, I like your clips. But one of the problem I have with Reenactment in gnereal and your take on it is that you normally only reenact the "heroic" actions. Even when thinking about the scenes you showed here, the "victims" are still soldiers. Or have you ever reenacted scenes where you simulated rape of women and girls (or men and boys) or just massacred unarmed civilans?
these things happen most of during sieges and soldiers were loose, in ancient times they were times when Generals tried to stop their men from doing it and were killed by their own men. in this mental mindset soldiers are less civilized and more of attack dogs that rampage across the battlefield ubtil they calm down
Great video with some great points, this warrants a viewing by anyone who attempts to justify atrocities with an explanation, especially many online Keyboard warriors.
This applies to what happened in October 7th. It's unjustifiable, but the reasons behind such acts can be understood quite easily.
Very good work, I like the way you reflect all sides of such a difficult topic.
In essence, explanations can help you understand and live with the consequences of an event but do not make the event objectively right or moral.
Feel free to correct me if I have misinterpreted the videos message.
On a different note, Very impressed with the footage at the end for an atmospheric and choreographic point of view.
I like these types of philosophical topics. I hope you make more videos.
PS Depressing videos takes me to the edge of my chair.
Its fine to empathise with how someone made the wrong decision, but it is still the wrong decision. Its also really important to try and understand why the wrong decision was made, so you can educate and look out for others who may fall down the same path. War is hell, War breaks people. So we either make sure non broken people monitor and guide those who get broken, or better yet, we consign War to the history books and never break young people again.
It's like what Thomas Hardy said; "But though to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children may be morality good enough for divinities, it is scorned by average human nature; and it therefore does not mend the matter."
Jesus Christ that opening, that hurt.
But what about the invasion of Scotland and the overthrow of King John of the Balliol dynasty by the English under Edward I?
Justifying actions by similar actions is so clearly hypocritical it's remarkable anyone uses it. Yet it's the only flaccid argument propping up the death penalty in the U.S.
What about life-sentences?
@@vaclavjebavy5118 last resort for the irredeemable (which admittedly begs the question, what circumstances constitute an irreversible mindset of criminality?)
Your statement is so vague it has little meaning. If I steal from someone, is it hypocritical to take that stuff away from me and give it back?
@@anthonyhayes1267 But still, it does take their life away. What difference does it make? I'm not for execution happy courts but it doesn't quite make sense for me to be against it on these grounds.
It also begs the question whether the legal system is about punishment and compensation or mere detainment.
@@anthonyhayes1267
Why not simply kock them up until they are considered redeemed? If that means for life then that's on the convict.
Another thing to consider is that the victims of military reprisals in WW2 were seldom the perpetrators who started it. The woman who were raped weren't the ones slaughtering prisoners in Russia.
Oh no you said material conditions, now you’re gonna get called a Marxist (I’m not online enough to know if you get called that anyway)
Oh, the Nazis are already out and about in the comment section
This was a very entertaining, informative and well organized video. Great work!
Very well put together. Always had that in my mind but could not exactly put it in words or text.
Great job, this is a very powerful video and makes some really good points.
The argument about the drunk driver nails it.
The beginning of this video sounds like a grand-slam early 90’s country music hit.
Also thank you for your good point. Far too often we fall into the trap of tit for tat or whataboutism to justify atrocity
One common thing about commenting history is that many people think they are explaining when they are seen by others as justifying. There can be many reasons for that.
The simplest is when they never acknowledge "their action's side" as an horrible thing and are mostly preoccupied in giving some far context. Instead of readily assuming responsibility, It seem as if they are trying to hide from it or escape it.
Another reason is when they begin to take the role of the decision maker and try to say how the decision was the best possible at the time or something similar. Such "experts" deciding about life and death of others as if they were some gods.
etc etc
I don't care how much explaining you are doing, to me it seem as if you are trying to justify it. Don't tell me it was for the best. Don't tell me you know all about it.
I completely agree with all the "Explanation is not Justification" argument you made here. The One thing you forgot. And that is a very important one for commenting about history.
Never forget that we "modern people" are not qualified to make any moral judgement about what happened then, unless we admit that we are ignorant of the times and situation, and that we are making those judgements with our own "unhistorical" morals.
If one is to make some judgement, then be sincere and humble in our knowledge.
That means that i am allowed to be disgusted by such "historical" thing as war crimes, genocide, slavery and by too many things done by those people. Why wouldn't i be? I am being sincere to my own morals and world view. But i am surely and completely hypocrite if i take any high stand about it, when i live tuck away safe and sound hundred of years of history ( technology, etc) away from them.
Those "enlightened moral people" who take the high moral ground about others in history can only disgust me, sometimes as much as some of the worst of those historical monsters.
You have raised many interesting and thought provoking points, especially the part about whataboutism and our tendencies to mistake explanations for justifications. I have a real-world example of both. France has yet to apologize for the war crimes it carried during its reign in Algeria, especially the 8 may 1945 massacres ( As Nazi Germany fell, and victory announced, the Algerian people took to the streets both to celebrate and to proclaim their freedom, France high on victory and scared it would lose its foothold in North Africa, committed heinous acts of mass murder ) and the use of rape/torture/execution/encampment to thwart the Algerian revolution later on. Naturally when a French official talked of Turkey's ( ex-Ottoman Empire) genocide of the Armenian people, Erdogen ( Turkey's President) raved about France's hypocrisy and their refusal to apologize for their own crimes in Algeria. It was as childish as ' no, you did this. ' and ' you started first. ' what was demoralizing is seeing friends and family fall over themselves trying to defend Erdogen while having no fucking idea of what happened to the Armenian people. What happened to them and to us shouldn't happen to anyone regardless of the the motives. Regardless of allegiance and alliance. Evil is rarely a tangible, easy to point to ideology or religion or people, but it is clear as fuck every time a state/military tries to justify genocide, torture and systematic deportation of people.
Like you said there were reasons people did things throughout history. What I think some people are getting confused about is the explanation as to why the historical figure justified an action doesn’t mean the modern speaker is justifying the same action.
For example let’s take operation Barbarossa.
If I were to be at a public gathering speaking about that specific event. I am explaining the courses of actions that were taken that led up to during and the aftermath of decisions and justifications.
That does not mean I am justifying the German invasion of the Soviet Union. I am simply explaining it.
The problem now is not really speaking about it. It’s the twitchy trigger fingers of one side or the other going “your defending the actions of this side!” Which is the problem. The discussion is being closed off. Many historians can and do see explanation is not modern justification. But it’s those who don’t see that which are causing a problem