An important difference between Eichmann and Kissinger is that the former was directly responsible for the Holocaust, whereas the later at best acquiesced to the invasion as a mater of political expediency. Think about it this way, do you think the same logic should apply to Roosevelt for his acquiescence to America’s then ally Stalin’s takeover of Eastern Europe?
An important difference between Eichmann and Kissinger is that the former was directly responsible for the Holocaust, whereas the later at best acquiesced to the invasion as a mater of political expediency.
That sets off the actor-observer bias warning light in my mind (assuming that for whatever reason you identify more with Kissinger than with Eichmann). OTOH I’m not familiar with the stories so it might be a false alarm.
An important difference between Eichmann and Kissinger is that the former was directly responsible for the Holocaust, whereas the later at best acquiesced to the invasion as a mater of political expediency. Think about it this way, do you think the same logic should apply to Roosevelt for his acquiescence to America’s then ally Stalin’s takeover of Eastern Europe?
That sets off the actor-observer bias warning light in my mind (assuming that for whatever reason you identify more with Kissinger than with Eichmann). OTOH I’m not familiar with the stories so it might be a false alarm.
This is certainly a valid question, worthy of further debate.
Eliezer, do you disagree?
Eugine’s comment is currently at zero, despite my upvote. So someone must have downvoted it.
Why? I thought it was an extremely substantive contribution to the discussion. Do you not think we should be having this discussion at all?
Why not, specifically?