Choose your Leader

@Imperious:

everybody was a criminal if you apply today’s standards of law upon them. In 1,000 years most of today’s leaders will be criminals to the eyes of future apes who take over our planet. Just ask Charlton Heston.

Even by his era’s standards, Caesar was a criminal.

It seems reasonable to try people according to their own laws.

Even by his era’s standards, Caesar was a criminal.

Exactly: Some people also feel the pope is the devil. Some people felt Caesar was good and other felt he was bad. Then and today.

When WW1 ended people felt the kaiser was bad, now he got replaced by Hitler who was a thousand times worse. IN 1,000 years the Kaiser will be another mere product of his age. Hitler will still be bad.

It seems reasonable to try people according to their own laws.

Well it could lead to disastrous results to think that this means that the ‘laws’ themselves are just and not also a product of the times. IN 1,000 years most of our laws will be considered barbaric and again some will feel they are just fine, while new “Hitlers or Caesars” will invent a new set of them and claim the same rationale. Back and forth.

Laws are not platonic ideal forms, but changing, altering definitions based on the current situation. Things working that way offer more evolution and dynamism.

I think the Roman Empire is a very interesting historical epoch, but Gaius Julius Caesar should not be consider criminal unless he killed many people who was not wearing uniforms and weapons. that being said, he was a dictator, not elected by the people as many roman senators. And Caesar was not close to be among the worst roman emperors, like i.e. Nero… :roll:
Julius Caesar was not the worst, but not the best leader for the roman people/citizens. I do believe that Julius Caesar deserves to have his names in the history books though, more than, Pompeii.

Caesar was great. His conquests liberated savage backward tribes and created a more efficient system of civilization that offered the opportunity for high culture to flourish in western Europe. The Roman Aqueducts, roads, and monetary system and central government provided stability to what were roaming tribes. Of course they also killed and fought wars, but the result of Roman expansion became a systematic order out of chaos.  I don’t know of any leader in this age that didn’t fight wars and didn’t kill or also do ‘bad things’ You cant measure historical leaders with the decorum of modern ethics. You have to look at the times and look at the final result and draw a bigger picture.

@Imperious:

Even by his era’s standards, Caesar was a criminal.

Exactly: Some people also feel the pope is the devil. Some people felt Caesar was good and other felt he was bad. Then and today.

When WW1 ended people felt the kaiser was bad, now he got replaced by Hitler who was a thousand times worse. IN 1,000 years the Kaiser will be another mere product of his age. Hitler will still be bad.

The Roman Republic had laws, it had legal mechanisms for determining “right” and “wrong” in the eyes of the state. Caesar flagrantly violated the law. This, by definition of the word, made him a criminal. This really isn’t something up to interpretation.

I could care less if he was a good or a bad leader, but I must insist that he was a criminal. I mean, George Washington was a criminal, too - a traitor, in the legal sense of the word.

@Imperious:

It seems reasonable to try people according to their own laws.

Well it could lead to disastrous results to think that this means that the ‘laws’ themselves are just and not also a product of the times. IN 1,000 years most of our laws will be considered barbaric and again some will feel they are just fine, while new “Hitlers or Caesars” will invent a new set of them and claim the same rationale. Back and forth.

Laws are not platonic ideal forms, but changing, altering definitions based on the current situation. Things working that way offer more evolution and dynamism.

No I think it leads to very fair results. If historians, or history aficionados at least, insist upon making moral judgements about ancient figures, then it is unjust to try them according to modern standards. It’s like figuring somebody’s net worth in 1826 dollars and not adjusting for inflation.

Today we have far stricter laws of war, notions of human dignity, etc. Powerful figures in the past did not have to take those into account when they made their decisions. But it might still be reasonable to say that military figure X was a traitor to his country because he overthrew the legal authorities upon his return from a military campaign, in spite of laws against it.

@Imperious:

Caesar was great. His conquests liberated savage backward tribes and created a more efficient system of civilization that offered the opportunity for high culture to flourish in western Europe. The Roman Aqueducts, roads, and monetary system and central government provided stability to what were roaming tribes. Of course they also killed and fought wars, but the result of Roman expansion became a systematic order out of chaos.  I don’t know of any leader in this age that didn’t fight wars and didn’t kill or also do ‘bad things’ You cant measure historical leaders with the decorum of modern ethics. You have to look at the times and look at the final result and draw a bigger picture.

Yeah but it wasn’t like he was fighting wars to liberate them.

Wars back then, they were fought for glory, for getting military commanders into the history books. Seriously, it was pretty much all they cared about, guys like Caesar or Alexander. They did it for prestige, not in the name of helping anybody.

But then again, are we so different today?

The Roman Republic had laws, it had legal mechanisms for determining “right” and “wrong” in the eyes of the state. Caesar flagrantly violated the law. This, by definition of the word, made him a criminal. This really isn’t something up to interpretation.

I could care less if he was a good or a bad leader, but I must insist that he was a criminal. I mean, George Washington was a criminal, too - a traitor, in the legal sense of the word.

Yes fair enough. Legally they are criminals, but the record historically resulted in something of being a product of the times. Otherwise the laws of Nazi Germany are ‘legal’ insofar as the laws of this state allow the behavior to exist which to others is most disputable.  But in reality the judgement is different for Caesar because of the result of his exploits. For Hitler we have the most horrific result and it can only remain a criminal, regardless of the ‘legal disposition’ of his actions.

@Imperious:

The Roman Republic had laws, it had legal mechanisms for determining “right” and “wrong” in the eyes of the state. Caesar flagrantly violated the law. This, by definition of the word, made him a criminal. This really isn’t something up to interpretation.

I could care less if he was a good or a bad leader, but I must insist that he was a criminal. I mean, George Washington was a criminal, too - a traitor, in the legal sense of the word.

Yes fair enough. Legally they are criminals, but the record historically resulted in something of being a product of the times. Otherwise the laws of Nazi Germany are ‘legal’ insofar as the laws of this state allow the behavior to exist which to others is most disputable.  But in reality the judgement is different for Caesar because of the result of his exploits. For Hitler we have the most horrific result and it can only remain a criminal, regardless of the ‘legal disposition’ of his actions.

Yes, I agree - and I’m very proud that the Allies were able to conduct the Nuremburg trials after the war, and prosecuted many Nazi criminals since then. Hitler may have had dictatorial power over German law, but not international law. He had not killed himself, he surely would have been tried and convicted like many other Nazis.

@ABWorsham:

@swordsman3003:

@Imperious:

The Roman Republic had laws, it had legal mechanisms for determining “right” and “wrong” in the eyes of the state. Caesar flagrantly violated the law. This, by definition of the word, made him a criminal. This really isn’t something up to interpretation.

I could care less if he was a good or a bad leader, but I must insist that he was a criminal. I mean, George Washington was a criminal, too - a traitor, in the legal sense of the word.

Yes fair enough. Legally they are criminals, but the record historically resulted in something of being a product of the times. Otherwise the laws of Nazi Germany are ‘legal’ insofar as the laws of this state allow the behavior to exist which to others is most disputable.  But in reality the judgement is different for Caesar because of the result of his exploits. For Hitler we have the most horrific result and it can only remain a criminal, regardless of the ‘legal disposition’ of his actions.

Yes, I agree - and I’m very proud that the Allies were able to conduct the Nuremburg trials after the war, and prosecuted many Nazi criminals since then. Hitler may have had dictatorial power over German law, but not international law. He had not killed himself, he surely would have been tried and convicted like many other Nazis.

Had Hitler been captured, how would Stalin have dealt with the man? I doubt the Soviets would allow the west to view their prized prisoner.

Oh definitely. The Soviets were opposed to trials for the highest guys, maybe in general. They were used to how they treated other Russians.

I think the Soviets were under the impression that the Nazi leaders would just be rounded up and shot. If there was a trial, they wanted it to be a sham.

I think they would ‘interview’ Hitler for a number of months…even years before killing him. Too many secrets died with him. I can guarantee he would at some point get the obligatory cyanide capsule smuggled in and cheat the hangman like Himmler and Goering.

But If Hitler won the war all the atrocities would be considered legal, since the conquered nations signing an armistice also abrogate the duty to continue to fight the regime. Look at how France legitimized its official role to Germany and even help the legitimacy of Hitler. If Europe fell the various nations would look at Hitler and fall in line with his policies. Thats not correct, but in terms of legitimacy they have ‘sold their souls to Germany’ to get along.

@swordsman3003:

Yes, I agree - and I’m very proud that the Allies were able to conduct the Nuremburg trials after the war, and prosecuted many Nazi criminals since then. Hitler may have had dictatorial power over German law, but not international law. He had not killed himself, he surely would have been tried and convicted like many other Nazis.

I strongly disagree with your statement, the Nuremberg trials were just theatrical facades.

The Russians demanded the Nazis shot, and they were right, also, Goering said he would plead guilty if he was to be shot like a soldier, not hanged as a criminal. I’m very far from being a communist, but in this specific matter the Russians and Goering was both correct, most Nazi leaders deserved to be shot as soldiers, and even as an European liberal who opposes of the death penalty, WW2 was a very special case. Imo, most Nazi leaders deserved to be shot as soldiers. And no, they did not deserve to serve in prison, b/c they had been killing to many people. But for historical records, it would be very interesting to hear the explanations and stories from the top Nazi leaders.

Edit: even if I don’t like Goering, our history from after WW2 has proved him right on some points, their offense was mainly that they lost the war… :|

Cortez operated legally under direction of the king of Spain, but he basically wiped out an entire people. Sure he was a criminal today, but in 1400’s this was the norm for exploration.

Yea the the Caesar thing was a man ahead of his time. The norm of the new Imperial Rome and its behavior was reinvented by him for hundreds of years to follow. In his day far worse emperors would be the new criminals ( Caligula and others) and the people looked at Julius as bringing in a golden age for Rome. Rome was a far greater thing for civilization because of people like Caesar. If the republic continued, the whole of Europe would have been fragmented and progress would be stagnant leading to even greater suffering because the barbarians would be less able to build the infrastructure to allow civilization to prosper in peace. Yes the Imperial period resulted in much greater periods of peace that allowed Philosophy and arts to develop in these times. The tribes feared the Romans and it had a placating effect on Europe.

Of course the despotism of latter Roman rulers led directly to gluttony out of this period of peace and the hordes came back and settled the score.

@ABWorsham:

If the subject were expansed to any military commander throughout history, who would you choose?

BGen Sir Harry Flashman VC,  8-) follow him anywhere

I see a lot of good answers for leaders from all ages. :-D

I am surprised however that none of the American members selected Admiral Chester W. Nimitz as #1 for WW2, because after Pearl Habour, he was appointed Commander in Chief of the Pacific over all Allied navy, air and land units and with his naval and air and land strategies, he led the American people to great victories at the Battle of the Coral Seas, the Battle of Midway and during the Solomon Islands campaign. These three great victories started the downward spiral for the Japanese. Because of these he was appointed Fleet Admiral of the US Navy - the highest rank of the Navy. He then had victories at Marianna Islands, Philippine Seas, Guam, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc. The list goes on. He was awarded the Gold Star and singed for the US when Japan formally surrendered on Sept 2, 1945.

Of course he had help, but to be able to bring together all Allied units and co-ordinate air, land and sea, this was probably the first time it had ever been done on such a scale. And to bring down the beast from the east which had overwhelming units and odds, it is a truly amazing if you think about it.

For all time I think I will pick Colonel Custer  : :lol:

Seriously though, Alexander the Great or Nepoloean should be considered for the amount of territory they managed to conquer. Although both were short lived. :-P

@Subotai:

@swordsman3003:

Yes, I agree - and I’m very proud that the Allies were able to conduct the Nuremburg trials after the war, and prosecuted many Nazi criminals since then. Hitler may have had dictatorial power over German law, but not international law. He had not killed himself, he surely would have been tried and convicted like many other Nazis.

I strongly disagree with your statement, the Nuremberg trials were just theatrical facades.

Really? Not all were sentenced to death, some recieved limited sentences, and some were even acquitted. How many conquering military powers showed that kind of discretion?

@Subotai:

The Russians demanded the Nazis shot, and they were right, also, Goering said he would plead guilty if he was to be shot like a soldier, not hanged as a criminal. I’m very far from being a communist, but in this specific matter the Russians and Goering was both correct, most Nazi leaders deserved to be shot as soldiers, and even as an European liberal who opposes of the death penalty, WW2 was a very special case. Imo, most Nazi leaders deserved to be shot as soldiers. And no, they did not deserve to serve in prison, b/c they had been killing to many people. But for historical records, it would be very interesting to hear the explanations and stories from the top Nazi leaders.

Well, we have that, don’t we? They surviving members of Nazi leadership explained themselves to the world, and we have that record.

And I’m also very glad they weren’t all just “shot like soldiers” - consider the case of Albert Speer, who, after doing his time, return to productive life and helped humanity, in some small way, come to terms with the atrocities of the Nazis and how life in the Nazi regime functioned.

The importance, for me, of the trials, was that the court in session showed discretion between who deserved to die, who didn’t, and for what reasons. Not all of the Nazis were soldiers, and not all deserved to die.

And Goering was an asshole and a liar, who would probably have demanded a trial as “a statesmen” if they decided to round him up and shoot him.

@Subotai:

Edit: even if I don’t like Goering, our history from after WW2 has proved him right on some points, their offense was mainly that they lost the war… :|

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

@swordsman3003, I agree that Albert Speer deserved many years in prison, but probably did not deserve to be shot.

And not all nazi leaders deserved the death penalty, but many of the top nazi leaders rightfully deserved to be shot and killed, regardless of if we like it or not. It was a war with extremely many victims, and if you lose a battle like this, this is not like losing a game of A&A or chess…… :roll:

When real people are really killed, that is another ball game from our discussions of sports and games and such.

Even our humanity (human species) is right twice a day… :wink:

@Subotai:

@swordsman3003, I agree that Albert Speer deserved many years in prison, but probably did not deserve to be shot.

And not all nazi leaders deserved the death penalty, but many of the top nazi leaders rightfully deserved to be shot and killed, regardless of if we like it or not. It was a war with extremely many victims, and if you lose a battle like this, this is not like losing a game of A&A or chess…… :roll:

When real people are really killed, that is another ball game from our discussions of sports and games and such.

Even our humanity (human species) is right twice a day… :wink:

For me, its not a question that some nazis deserved to die, but rather which ones should have died. the existence of the trials was a reasonable to discern that, and much more selective than many other regimes would have had it.

I think we’re in a general agreement though.