History / Terrible past for the Jews in Poland? [930]


To my mind the answer is this:

If it is a fact that there was an overrepresentation of Jewish Poles (Polish Jews, Poles of Jewish faith, Jewish people who lived in Poland or whatever) in the Polish Communist regime, then in asking the question of why Jewish Poles (Polish Jews, Poles of Jewish faith, Jewish people who lived in Poland or whatever) made up a disproportionate number, one must needs be differentiate for the purposes of the exercise.

Questioning "Why?" the differentiation is, with respect, as useless as, for example, asking a statistician conducting a survey on prison populations in the US why they differentiated between African American, Hispanic American, Asiatic American, Caucasian American etc people in custody in the USA when they are all Americans anyway.

Or, to use a more Australian example, questioning a Royal Commission into death in custody why they differentiated between indigenous Australians and non-indigenous when both subsets are in the end Australian.

I suppose one could use an even more relevant example to yourself and ask you why you differentiate between Germans displaced during and after WW2 and Poles displaced during and after WW2 when all these people are human and/or from Europe etc etc.

If you can answer that question in respect of yourself, then you may have answered the question you posed to Paulina, if indeed her motivation was the same as yours.

I see several answers open to you - purely academic reasons, an objective sense that there has been an injustice, or because you identify strongly with your German heritage and are aggrieved that Germans were displaced. If there's another answer then let me know.


Do with them? In what regard exactly?

For the ones who freely, opportunistically and voluntarily signed up as Commies and took part in the subjugation, murder and control of their countrymen, I think we can all agree they are deserving of a special place in hell for their treachery. As to how many that is, no one really knows.

For the rest, what would you do to the father who was left no choice but to join the SB under threat of what would happen to his family if he didn't? What of the invalid AK veteran who had to become a card carrying member to survive? Or what of the Jewish Pole, once a lawyer in pre WW2 Warsaw, who was similarly forced into the role of Prosecutor because if he didn't he'd be shot in the back of the head?

Who really knows?

What I do know is that just before the Soviet takeover, say late 1944/early 1945, the number of Polish people (of whatever faith or race) who professed to being Communist could be counted in the hundreds, and that's probably being generous.

From 100's to 1,000,000's in the space of a few years suggest the Soviets and Polish Communists were selling something in their doctrine that really appealed to all those Poles who joined up after WW2 - as to what that something was, I don't know, but if you find it let me know and we'll start our own political party.

History / Terrible past for the Jews in Poland? [930]


Absolutely correct.

An individual or nation of people cannot be held to account or responsible for the actions of a Government with no popular mandate and/or lawful/legitimate foundation, as is the case with Poland and the Soviet puppet government installed thereto, and particularly so where an organic and legitimate government already existed but was through perfidy supplanted by a foreign one. That is axiomatic.

Moreso too, where, in the case of Poland, absolutely no benefit to the populace was derived from the alien government and even further where such alien government did not have as its raison d'etre the benefit and best interests of the Polish population.

It has nothing to do with the racial/religious composition of the Government and is irrelevant to the question of absolvement of responsibility.

History / Terrible past for the Jews in Poland? [930]


Hey mate. This is a interesting comparison. I'll ask my dad if he knows anything. He was only a young boy, but was in Warsaw and was pretty savvy. It'd be interesting to know too how currency was used during the war and how it changed during the course of it.

History / Polish conscripts to German army [132]


Good to see that you're still fighting the good fight and being respectful as always.

History / What Hitler really thought about Poles? Hitler's letter to Himmler 1944 [111]

Hi Cardno - I think what he meant (if this letter is true, which I doubt) is to identify the fact that the Poles were very intelligent/cunning/skilled at guerrilla war, and more so that the Germans could learn from that, particularly if we take that in parallel with the Nazi proposal at the final stages of WW2 to adopt their own "Home Army" based closely on the AK, which they considered the most effective (because it was) underground army of the war.

History / capitulation of Warsaw Uprising [16]

@sofijufka
I'm saddened to hear that your great aunt died, but happy that she survived the Rising. I hope your cousin survived? Was she a combatant? If so, where was she stationed? It'd be interesting to see if she was anywhere near where my dziadek and dad were. My dziadek was KIA on the 4th day of the Rising, but my dad survived with my babcia.

"Euro German"? - does this mean a Ukrainian or Russian? Dad told me they were the worst for looting and murder, along with the SS, but that the Wehrmacht were relatively speaking more 'civilised'.


Amen.


It's interesting to contrast that sentiment of Gen Anders with his later desire to have Polish forces released from service under HMG so as to fight their way back to Poland in early to mid 1945. Regardless, he was a great man and a hero.


Bear Cub was no loony or murderer. I'm really surprised and disappointed that someone like you would say that Enkidu. You should take that back please.

You may not know it, but Bear Cub wrote a statement whilst imprisoned by the NKVD in which he deposed to the reasons for the Rising, its rationale, and the arguments for and against. He, like countless thousands of other Polish men and women after the war found death at the hands of a Soviet jailer.

The luxury of hindsight and presentism allows armchair experts to wring their hands and wag their fingers at the leaders of the AK who made the decision to fight. The decision was made by those at the coal face. There was no other option and that it ended without victory for the Poles is not a condition precedent to some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy that all the Poles ever did was always wrong whenever they lost.

The atmsophere in Warsaw in which the decision was made was unlike nearly any other city or place during WW2. The Germans had, by word and deed, made it abundantly clear that Poles of whatever religious subscription were to be killed whether out of hand or by being worked to death. This was not a place where surrender was an option. It was the case that you either fought and died with maybe a slim prospect of success, or did nothing and died anyway. It was most certainly the case that the 'doctrine of two enemies' ventured by Pilsudski was coming to actual fruition and Warsaw was going to be the anvil for two hammers.

Do you not understand that the Germans had no regard for the Rules of War in Poland? Have you not heard how Germans and their auxillaries would take Polish infants by the legs and smash their bodies against walls, or throw them in the air and bayonet them? Are you unfamiliar with the mass murder of civilians in the streets as reprisal for any actual or perceived act of sabotage or death of a German? Please, go and find out what 'life' was really like there at the time from someone who was actually there, then come back and tell us what you would have done if you were in the shoes of Bor or Bear Cub. Your other options are pretty much limited to two though - you could have lain low and 'hid', or simply surrendered. How would that have worked out, having regard to what actually happened to those who did that?

Life / Professional feminists' of Poland meet-up [631]


I strongly disagree that it should be upheld above anything else. Incidents of Domestic Violence are the key exception and the safety of spouses, and more importantly the children, trumps any notion that keeping the family unit together ought to be paramount.

Whilst I certainly agree that the family unit ought to be put forward as a tenet of any society, and not only Western Society (including same sex families), sometimes the unit falls apart due to the horrific actions of one or both the spouses. It is far better to separate than to maintain 'the family' with (typically) the female spouse living in absolute misery and the children growing up in that climate and oftentimes perpetuating the cycle of domestic violence in their own future relationships.

If the 'feminist movement' can be credited for one thing, it is bringing to the spotlight issues of domestic violence in the home and making domestic violence an issue for society and not one where it's kept behind closed doors, or seen as something to shirk away from. I say this too in the context of men who suffer domestic violence - at least in Australia, there is equality of standing in bringing about an application for a DVO whether personally or with the assistance of Police.

I shudder to think of the number of spouses (and the effected children) who suffered domestic violence but who refused to get out of the relationship on the basis that they thought it was better to stay together 'for the kids'.

Genealogy / Polish looks? [1410]


I think you misunderstand me Wulkan. I was referring here to the shape of the head, rather than hair. My hair reference was to the widow's peak.


It's all good mate, nothing to be afraid of.


So do I, so did my dziadek, and so did one of my grand uncle's. If you have a look at some of the pics of General Sikorski, you'll see what I mean. This is how we are destined to look when we are older mate!

Genealogy / Polish looks? [1410]

No mate, I mean the back of the head. Most people have a back of the head that is curved, or semi circular, from the nape of the neck to the top of the head, whereas I've observed that some Polish people, typically males, have a far more flatter back of the head, meaning not that it is dead flat, but far less curved (I have this too). Do you agree? What do you think about the widow's peak hairline?

Genealogy / Polish looks? [1410]


In my opinion, characteristic Polish features distinguishing Poles from other Slavs would be high cheek bones, pronounced widow's peak hairlines in males (ie the 'vampire hairline') and flat backs of the head.

Genealogy / All Future Polish Genealogy Researchers: Please Read before you start a thread [45]


Fallacy of false analogy.


Straw man fallacy.

Now, how about addressing the real issue at hand, and without the cheek, fallacious commentary or thought terminating cliches.

Genealogy / All Future Polish Genealogy Researchers: Please Read before you start a thread [45]


Fallacy of false attribution.

Polonius is correct. Poland was partitioned and occupied. This was done against the will and without the consent of Poland, thus there was no legitimacy. The mere fact that foreign powers 'acknowledged' matters is not in any way proof of same, and is as false as me saying that I now own your property and it is mine because some of my friends agree that it is now mine.

History / How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer [219]


Just because you got 'screwed over' by a friend doesn't mean you side with the Devil. What do you think?

History / How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer [219]


Wasn't it the case mate that towards the end of the war he or Himmler tried to set up a Polish unit to fight the Soviets under Nazi auspices that went nowhere because only a few dozen Poles volunteered?

History / How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer [219]


Indeed it was, and there are some suggestions that the Czechs pantomined in foreign uniforms to give a subterfuge. If one delves into the issue further, one can't help but notice the antics of Benes, with his double-speak and Ketmanesque dealings during the Spa negotiations and prior, faking a position of desiring a plebiscite to buy time. The Poles executed the agreement on the assumption of a decision being made on an objective basis, but were humbugged as Benes had already known of the decision beforehand, and indeed negotiated it direct with the decision makers!

As you would know, an agreement can be overturned in the event that a party has committed a fraud in obtaining the other party's consent, or has not disclosed to the other party matters that are material for the other party's consideration when deciding whether or not to enter into the agreement. Estoppel springs to mind too.

In any event, fast forward 20 odd years - inter alia, the Poles now long having realised they'd been duped by the Czechs (or I should say the Czech representative, because the Czech people shouldn't be held to account for the folly of their representatives) make an ultimatum in a different climate, which is accepted by the Czechs, and the Poles roll in - rough justice, I'd say. That the Poles didn't do anything sooner, and indeed seem to have exercised a fair amount of forebearance when action was taken, can only be attributed to the fact that Poland really is the Christ of Nations.

Curious, isn't it, how none of the Czech apologists (who I would warrant have probably never been to Czechoslovakia (as it was then know)) make any mention of Chamberlain's involvement in the Nazi carve up, nor in respect of the context to the matter as it played out in the late teens and early 20's - but, then again, we can't have facts getting in the way of an opportunity to jump on Polish shadows - indoctrination by Western propaganda, no doubt. Next we'll be hearing from them that Sikorski (from the grave) created the altered Curzon Line, that the Soviet takeover in 1944/45 was lawful under the Polish Constitution and that the Polish navy made full steam for Britain before the first shot was fired in WW2!

History / How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer [219]


How very unlike you...

Shirking from a discussion, and moreso a discussion to which which the subject matter is near and dear to you, and whenever it pops up otherwise you home in on it. You've never let someone else's 'lying' hold you back - indeed, it seems to drive you in correcting the lie - but here, nothing.

Well, you've called me out, and I'm your huckleberry...

History / How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer [219]


Truth hurts, doesn't it. The fact that it was only one squadron makes the fact that same saved Britain all the more remarkable.


High horse, actually. The only one pretending to ride hobby horses here is you, with your claimed Polish Army dress ups and pantomines. Just go back to rummaging through the costume box whilst the adults discuss matters of history. Pip pip ;-).


Whilst I'm wholly unfamiliar with the term "invicable", yours is a question, no doubt, best put to HMG in respect of their outright refusal to allow Anders' request in early 1945 to gather the remnants of his army fighting for HMG and return to Poland and reclaim their own country - yet another tick against the list of perfidy against the Poles. You wouldn't be aware of that however, being inculcated with Western propaganda.

And please note Issy, no response from you is desired or required. I've ended the discussion. Thank you.


Well put Ironside. As usual, you are at the vanguard of dismissing fantasy with fact. In similar vein, one should also recall the immortal words of the Honourable Sir Winston Churchill in praise of the Polish pilots when saying:

"Never in the field of conflict was so much owed by so many to so few"

Were you aware that HMG had the audacity to invoice against the Polish gold reserves held on trust for payment of the use of British planes, inter alia. It's a bit like me getting you over to my place to help put out a fire that's burning my home, then charging you for the use of the water and the singed hose.


An interesting claim, and I thank you for revealing it.

No doubt you've garnered some tangible information from relevant archives which, no doubt, set out, in particular, details regarding precisely what was or wasn't within the power of HMG to do viz their obligations under the Agreement. Please share that with us, bearing in mind your often repeated claims on this forum that you never claim anything without having the sources to back it up. I look forward to reading what you provide by way of source material...


For a start, the leaflets dropped could have been replaced with bombs...

You'll no doubt however be aware of why the order was given to drop leaflets instead.


You're falling for the ol' Western propaganda here too Harry. The BEF commenced deployment to France from 3 September, so your above quoted is pure dissimulation. Would you please explain the delay as to why it took til the 26th for them to start moving, and why in any event they were to wait til not earlier than 5 October in taking up places in Northern France? Mind you, I'm not after your opinion, but facts and matters gleaned from your knowledge of HMG's state of mind at the time. Please also refrain from any cheeky comments when responding - thanks in advance.

In any event, there is no text within the Agreement which says that in the event of invasion succeeding, obligations were to be suspended, but do feel free to point it out if you say there is...

History / How different would WW2 turned out if Poland accepted Hitler's offer [219]


Yes, it was the only right and just decision. As flawed and deceitful as the Poms and French were, Nazi Germany was one of the greatest evils of all time. I understand you're putting a hypothetical forward, but do you really think any true Pole would sign on with the Nazis? I would be absolutely disgusted to think that my ancestors were sided with the Nazis, whatever the gain may have been, and I'm sure that all of our Polish members would feel the same.


And, as is usual, I will ask you to detail whether or not what HMG actually did do was sufficient in discharge of its obligations under the Agreement and, as usual, you will have no genuine response.


Hardly. Without the Poles saving England during the BoB, there would be no RAF to bomb anything. You would do well to remember that.

UK, Ireland / London is Poland's 24th largest city [85]


Hi Adam,

I enjoyed reading that anecdote, if it was one? Sounds like something from the diary of a 17th Century Polish nobleman who visited London. Could you let us know where it came from please and who the author was? Cheers

Genealogy / Does anyone have any relatives who served with 1st Polish Armoured Division (Gen. Maczek) [311]


Mate, what a heart wrenching story - thanks for sharing. Unfortunately, I can't help as I had no ancestors who served under General Maczek, but if you read up about the exploits of his Armored Brigade, you'll see that your dad served amongst heroes and was undoubtedly one himself.


If you didn't 'sign up', it was usually a bullet or being sent to the camp. This has been a constant source of anxiety for Poles since the Partition era - being forced to serve in the armies of their occupier.

Good luck in your quest for knowledge on your father, and trust me, your dad did you a service in not telling you what happened to him during the war, or what he saw.

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


I'm not sure about a right being enshrined, but would prefer to see some form of strict licensing system put in place. A "Right" predicates a gun owner (or potential one) being able to acquire and keep a weapon without the sorts of checks and balances that a licensing system would have, and I think such system ought to be preferred.


Anecdotally, I heard a story a few years back that during the Cuban Missile crisis, the Soviets were contemplating some form of invasion of the USA but gave that the kibosh when the intelligence came through that they would probably have to also battle the millions of US citizens who held their own firearms.

History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [451]


Utter nonsense, and a sterling example of a non sequitur - a prosecution under an old Soviet law is most certainly nothing to do with an endorsement of the government that created such law, but is most certainly in line with not offending the principle against retroactive legislation. It would be an interesting scenario indeed if every new government repealed all laws created by its predecessor purely by virtue of the fact that the new government was concerned that the retention of such laws could be seen as an 'endorsement' of the old and different political party.

Prosecution under the Constitution? Didn't know any Constitution anywhere carried penalties for breach, because that isn't the purpose of a Constitution, but you're the 'expert'.


Positive.

The presence or otherwise of Mikolajczyk has as much relevance to the issue of legitimacy as the mere presence of 100's of 1000's of Poles in the concentration camps does to an argument that the concentration camps were endorsed and legitimised by the Polish people because of their presence there.

History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [451]


The issue is not about what modern day Poland chooses to adopt from the Communist era, but rather the issue is whether or not at the time (44/45) the Communist installed puppet regime was lawful. It was not.

Seeing as you seem an expert on Polish Legislation, can you tell us if it's the case the modern day Poland enacted legislation legitimising Communist era legislation, or if such Communist legislation continued to be in force by virtue of not being repealed by modern day Poland.


You just don't get it - the 'puppet parliament' pushing through these 'rules' (what rules?) did not have authority or jurisdiction to do that. You cannot create a law to give you authority to create another law if the law does not give you the power to do so at first instance. This is legal theory 101. It can't take it in any further or make it any simpler than that.


Really? Are you really that hell bent on your position that you wish me to engage you in an illogical exercise even after I told you I wouldn't because I'm not that dumb? Please, have some self respect - it's getting embarrassing.

For fun, I'll meet you half way though and grant you an indulgence just to show you the absurdity of your position. My proof of the fact that it was illegitimate is that it's illegitimate according to the 1921 and 1935 Constitution and the universally understood concept of sovereignty. Go on, ask me specifics of my proof - my answer will always be it is illegitimate according to the Constitution and sovereignty.

By the way, you've ignored my other contentions in my post 195, so it can only be assumed that they are accepted. This is the new by-law of Polishforum that I hereby create according to the existing Rules of PF and because there is nothing in the Rules that says I can't. If admin creates a Rule that purports to prevent me from doing this, my contingency Rule that I've now created takes effect such that any Rules created by Admin. that do not accord with or frustrate any previous or future Rules that I may create are automatically repealed. Moreover, because some Mods have been the subject of (undue) criticism, I don't recognise their Authority, nor, by virtue of their association, the Admin of PF. In the vacuum created by that fait accompli, my actions I deem to be legitimate, because there is no-one to say otherwise.This is all done according to the PF Rules just in case you're wondering - if you don't agree, prove that I can't do it.


C'mon man, get with the program - he's referring to the Rules from the treaty of the Constitution of Mutual Assistance and the legislation created by the sovereignty of Westphalia's lawful puppet government of Soviet constitutional theories and practices. If you don't know about this, how can he discuss it ;)


Careful here Hague - was Ryszard Walesa constituted of the 1921 Constitution and Rules of legally strict legal sovereignty?

History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [451]


Yes, it was. Let me be abundantly plain with you - it was a government installed by a foreign, alien power. A change in law of a country imposed by a foreign power to suit that foreign powers own ends is not lawful, nor is it the law. That is the rational of sovereignty - a country makes its own laws. Unless there was some legal authority that was created by the native Polish government (the government in exile or it predecessor) which provided to the effect that a foreign alien power had jurisdiction to install such foreign government and/or change the law to that end, in these particular circumstances, then it was unlawful. It matters not that foreigners said that the govt in exile was illegitimate and therefore able to be swept aside, because that is what sovereignty is all about.


The government had not though. The government in exile was the native Polish government, as flawed as it may have seemed to some. There was no organic and native Polish authority for the proposition that the Govt in Exile was not lawful, simply because no such finding had been made by any judicial body with jurisdiction to do so.


I'm well aware that you keep saying it, but merely saying it is not proof of the fact that remains to be proven. You are engaging in the subtle tactic of proof by verbosity. Once again - set out the placitum of either Constitution which supports your claim either prima facie or by virtue of such placitum being the head of power under which another piece of legislation was enacted.

For example:

Article "X" provides that in the event of "A" occurring, the government of the Soviet may, without reservation or limitation, install, or assist in the installation of, any form of government of any makeup whatsoever, with such government to have absolute and unchallenged authority over Poland,

or,

Article "Z" of the Constitution is the head of power under which "Y" Act was created, with such Act (a) not being in conflict with the said Constitution; and, (b), prescribing that in the event of "A" occurring, the government of the Soviet may, without reservation or limitation, install, or assist in the installation of, any form of government of any makeup whatsoever, with such government to have absolute and unchallenged authority over Poland, pursuant to Section "W" of said Act.

I appreciate that it is convenient to base your opinion on what the Soviets said was lawful, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.


And therein lies your petard. The Soviets and/or their puppet regime had no authority or jurisdiction to amend anything whatsoever. Again, this is what being a sovereign nation is all about. You are misconceived if you believe that in theory everything was "lawful", because the application of law to the facts is not about theory, but about actually applying laws to facts. I've asked you to do this, but you haven't, and you refuse to.


You've done no such thing. You've made bald assertions based on nothing it seems but


It was no such thing.


I repeat, a foreign power cannot legitimise its takeover of another country by creating the matrix to which such purported legitimacy is derived. This is pure fallacy of circular cause and consequence.


You misconceive my capacity and intent if you think I would be dumb enough to engage you in sipping from Russell's teapot.


Fallacy of affirming the consequent.


This comment suggests to me you cannot either support your proposition or indeed do not know yourself what sovereignty means. I asked you to be specific and set out particulars of this supposed 'claim' of the Lublin Govt and how it accorded with your postulated concept of universaly understood sovereignty. You failed to do either, but chose to tell me that I don't know what sovereignty means and essentially 'go read a book'.

This is an excellent way to add persuasiveness to a shakey position - you've sold me.

History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [451]


To be honest, I didn't really understand any of what you were saying, hence my question.

History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [451]


It has everything to do with it because it was the Soviets who installed the Polish Communist Govt which is one of the key reasons behind why the Polish Communist Govt is illegitimate and unlawful.


That's an interesting opinion. Do elaborate so I can learn from my mistakes...


You could so easily vindicate your position by, once again, specifying which piece of legislation/Consitution (and the particular section, article etc) is authority for the proposition the the Communist Govt was 'legal'. Had you based your proposal on such foundations, you would have already provided us with such authorities, but you haven't, despite my request, which from previous experience really means your suggestions are baseless and wrong.

One cannot postulate a 'legal' submission without reference to the law or case authority to which it relates. Merely saying something was


is not enough. It will be asked, as I have done, 'which law'? You seem to be saying 'the Constitution', but which Article of the Constitution?


Please particularise the purported 'claim' and let us know how it accorded with this supposed universally understood principle of sovereignty. It must have been a principle promulgated and universally understood by the Soviets alone however, because I'm unaware of any principle or otherwise in respect of the legal and factual matters concerning sovereignty that say it's okay to occupy a country then install a puppet regime whose raison d'etre is to slavishly follow the said occupier's political and social mantra.


Please, don't be ridiculous. We all appreciate your favouring of your German heritage over your Polish one, but what historical common path of mutual harmony did Poles and Germans as nations walk together?

History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [451]


I'm confused now - first you say that the Communists were more legitimate than the Govt-in-exile by virtue of your opinion on the way in which they supposedly espoused the 1921 Constitution, now you're saying it's irrelevant?


If we accept your position here, then please show us specifically from the 1921 Constitution where it provides for a puppet Soviet government to be installed in the event of a domestic Constitutional crisis, and further where it prescribes that said puppet regime should adopt the nomenclature and style of a Communist dictatorship for 45 years whilst presumably caretaker of Poland pending the resolution of said Constitutional crisis.

It doesn't does it.

That's because there can never be legitimacy in any way, shape or form surrounding the way in which the Soviets took over Poland and installed a puppet regime because such regime was never born of the ultimate legitimising factor - the will, consent and creation of the Polish people.

History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [451]


There are no placitum from either Constitution which provide that legitimacy of rule of an invader may be sourced from mere reference to the Constitution, far less so from reference to a superceded Constitution. Respectfully, your theory is a nonsense. If you can show me placitum from either Constitution that support your theory then please do so.

History / Polish military uniforms - collar markings [74]


Thanks mate.

History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [451]


Precisely. Poland cannot be held to account for something that was done without the consent or execution of its lawful government. As the "Polish" communist government was not lawfully constituted in any manner, then any acts/omissions purportedly ascribed to Poland in a blameworthy sense post the installation of the Communist puppet government are incorrect and the Polish people have no legal, ethical or moral responsibility to feet guilt for same, let alone to have to answer such misconceived and absurd accusations. Such is the 'benefit' of having others force decisions and take action purportedly on your behalf -you get to skip the blame if things go wrong.

I of course am open to any genuine challenge against my position...