Violent resistance movements tend to use very comparable methods, that usually extend to acts of extreme cruelty and targeting of civilians. — Tzeentch

Anti-Nazi partisan groups largely focused on weaking German military infrastructure, not going on rape & murder sprees of uninvolved German civilians. I am not familiar with anything comparable to 10/7 among groups persecuted by the Nazis. Being oppressed shouldn't automatically turn one into a complete animal free from all moral considerations.

Anti-Nazi partisan groups largely focused on weaking German military infrastructure, not going on rape & murder sprees of uninvolved German civilians. I am not familiar with anything comparable to 10/7 among groups persecuted by the Nazis. Being oppressed shouldn't automatically turn one into a complete animal free from all moral considerations. — BitconnectCarlos

Good points.. I've been thinking about this a bit.. I noticed that there are probably degrees of response to oppression depending on the intensity and nature of the oppression...

1) You are stripped down to nothing, malnourished/starved, put to intense slave labor, tortured, and then put on an inevitable train to a gas chamber.. I would imagine people in this circumstance, are under such intense suffering that if given the chance to revenge the direct torturers that might be at the least, understood.. even if it went beyond that, to rampaging the countryside for a day or so.. That is because under the extent that that person was under temporary psychosis from being exposed to the deprivation, that might affect one's ability to even reason.

This scenario might be the most understandable in terms of violent reaction to oppression.

2) You are enslaved because of the color of your skin. You are lashed repeatedly for "non-compliance", or even perceived wrongs from your "masters". Your family can be sold to another slave-owner. You cannot get out of your living/work arrangements, have freedom of movement, etc. One slave starts a violent rebellion..

This scenario is not as extreme as the first scenario but still very dire. This would call for certain forms of violence. I am not sure it meets the level of "psychosis", but for certain individuals who have been broken by the system, this would definitely apply.

3) You live in a community that is bitter because they see their grandparent's homes were taken over by an enemy ethnicity/religion. You don't accept the circumstances of the current living situation, you either won't settle in another country, or they simply won't take you in. You are encouraged by other communities that you have been wronged. Your conditions are not enslavement or put into labor and death camps, but you lack some freedom of movement, and the ability to have a say in a government that represents your ethnic/religious background. You have a sense your land was stolen and you could be living a better life if you only had that land back..

This scenario doesn't seem to fall at all under the first two which would cause a form of psychosis in the intensity and kind of harm taking place.. It's not enslavement/death camp levels of suffering.

Here is where culture might come into play. As stated earlier, there are cultures, perhaps even situational ones, as created by the non-violence Civil Rights movement in the US, whereby one can try to affect change through sympathy. Or, you can use terrorist methods to invoke fear. Are some cultures more honor-based/justice-based/violence-preference based whereby the Civil Rights option would not even be an option? Of course, it's especially worrisome if it is the fact that the very terrorist reaction to the political non-determination, has created even worse conditions. It seems that it is culturally entrenched, if one doubles down on a (violent) strategy that has actually helped make the situation worse, not better.

If you're allowing the children to be out late that's a sign of a high-trust society and the practice reflects that. — BitconnectCarlos

Compare the accounts of individuals who remember that when they were children, they were allowed (or ordered, even) to be outside the home unsupervised for part of the day, and accounts of individuals who were closely supervised at all times.

I grew up in a very small town culture where unsupervised time was normal; and accountability was minimal. Nobody asked, "What did you do all day?" I've read accounts of big city culture where unsupervised time was also normal. Trust, yes, but risk too. Children tend to be risk-tolerant or risk-oblivious. Parents of unsupervised children had to be risk-tolerant as well. Bad things do happen: drownings, injuries, fights, mischief, petty theft, etc--without it changing parental regimes.

My sense is that the culture in many places--small town or city--has become more risk averse, and children tend to be supervised much more closely, though not necessarily the "helicopter" level of risk aversion. High expectations are a part of this: upward mobile -aspiring parents subject their children to a lot of organized activities from an early age -- dance, music, soccer, etc. which are (presumably) intended to help them launch into a rising class. Preschool is the first organized performance step to higher education, even before kindergarten.

Upward class mobility effort is a hallmark of middle class culture (defining middle class here as 'well and securely employed parents').

So, to some extent, "high trust level" has been replaced by "high expectation level". Children in this regime are expected to perform well; early; consistently; and over the long haul. Parents whose children are on their own much of the time likely don't have "high expectation levels", in terms of higher education and income, which is not to say they don't care about their children.

High expectations are nurture more than nature.

Three year olds in a busy urban street? Trust who? — schopenhauer1

Back in the late 1980s I had a late night job in Minneapolis. One night I saw a very young child -- 3 or 4 years old, 5 max -- on a sidewalk riding a tricycle by herself at 2:30 am. Shocking anywhere, but this was in a somewhat rough area. That wasn't trust -- that was neglect. Did I do anything about it? No. I kept on moving. So much for the caring culture.

I noticed that there are probably degrees of response to oppression depending on the intensity and nature of the oppression. — schopenhauer1

Culture and experience comes into play here. Why didn't the Jews revolt? Strike back? Kill Nazis whenever possible? One reason is that they had been subjected to a severe regime of generalized hatred and repression, wherein they could expect zero sympathy from Germans (or Poles, Ukrainians, etc.) Another is that they were usually unarmed. They were further weakened by hunger, thirst, cold, or heat.

Effective resistance requires a program, planning, instruction, preparation, and then (after a considerable period of time) performance.

Why did the Palestinians in Gaza attack Israel? They too were oppressed. Two reasons: First, they weren't subjected to the conditions of the Warsaw ghetto (at least not until October 8, 2023). Gazans actively traded. Food, water, civil services, medical care, etc. was available. Secondly, their culture included resistance -- a la Hamas. They were armed not only with guns and bullets but by rocketsl. Significantly, Hamas was dug in really well. Hamas seems to be / has been more integrated with Gazans than Hesbollah is/has been with the Lebanese people. Hamas seems to be an integral part of Gaza's culture.

The October 7, 2023 massacre wasn't a spontaneous outburst, but had been planned, prepared for, practiced, and then performed. I don't have any insight into Hamas' reasoning. Did they think Israel would not conduct severe reprisal? Was Israel's retaliation worse than they expected? Do Hamas' managers think they are winning the war?

The message to Gazans (Palestinians in general) is "Resistance is futile! You will not be assimilated, you will be crushed. We will destroy everything you have. You should immigrate--anywhere, really, we don't care. Just get out of our sight!" However, there doesn't seem to be any means by which Gazans CAN leave, and no Arab state is offering them haven.

Anti-Nazi partisan groups largely focused on weaking German military infrastructure, not going on rape & murder sprees of uninvolved German civilians. I am not familiar with anything comparable to 10/7 among groups persecuted by the Nazis. Being oppressed shouldn't automatically turn one into a complete animal free from all moral considerations. — BitconnectCarlos

Apples and oranges, as usual.

Are partisans not a violent resistance group?

To suggest that World War 2 and the Israel-Palestine conflict are in any way comparable is a ridiculous argument that I cannot fathom anyone takes seriously.

The fact that you would try to make the comparison while simultaneously ignoring much more obvious examples like the Irish IRA and the Basque ETA (which undoubtedly would be much less suited to support your arguments) tells me all I need to know.

And no, partisans taking part in a wider military effort are not the same as civil resistance against long-standing oppression.


What even are these arguments?

Is it a classic example of flinging shit at a wall hoping something might stick? Or are you really that far gone that you genuinely believe in these nonsensical comparisons?

The fact that you would try to make the comparison while simultaneously ignoring much more obvious examples like the Irish IRA and the Basque ETA (which undoubtedly would be much less suited to support your arguments) tells me all I need to know. — Tzeentch

Americans always ignored the regional and political conflicts of Europe. IRA was suffered by the Irish and fortunately solved by their own way. Basque ETA was only suffered by us. Nobody cared in the world how a terrorist organisation still targeted and killed people because of political issues, even under democracy. Basque ETA members were called heroes under Franco's regime, but it was more painful, violent, and toxic later on, in the 1980s and 1990s. This issue still has consequences today. I wish we did the things right as the Irish and moved on, but no, the scars are not healed yet.

I don't know whether it is comparable or not. Belfast or Bilbao were not oppressed. Some tell the story of resisting a dictatorship. Well, I can accept this point using my country as an example, but Ireland and the UK? They are full democracies. These conflicts started because of nationalism and religion, like Israel-Palestine, yes. But it would be crazy to say that Basque country was oppressed under a democracy because THEY KEPT KILLING EVEN IN MODERN SPAIN, we should forget this.

In those cases I think 'oppression' is indeed a strong term. In the case of Ireland there were various historical grievances that fueled the resistance to English rule. In the case of the Basques I am not sure.

But people's sense of identity and the desire for self-determination which flows from that - basically nationalism - is a very powerful force.

Self-determination is also a human right cemented in international law, the denial of which historically has led to all sorts of bloody conflicts.

In other words, it appears the denial of self-determination is in itself perceived as such a grave violation of human dignity that it alone is enough to spur people towards violent resistance.

In other words, it appears the denial of self-determination is in itself perceived as such a grave violation of human dignity that it alone is enough to spur people towards violent resistance. — Tzeentch

I think the spectrum/standard for extreme violence still stands by comparing the three scenarios here, that is to say in all cases (Basque, Troubles, Palestine), none of them would meet the standard of targeting/torturing/raping civilians, whether to strike fear, as leverage, or to provoke a response, or whatever else. See here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/937937

Of course, each one of those cases/regions is different, and culture plays a factor in this. At the end of the day, whether uneasy peace or not, the Irish resistance compromised with the British. The ability to compromise or take less than what one would originally want, again plays into cultural differences. If a culture values "justice" (heavily scare quoted here) or honor above all else, including the peace and prosperity of living in a self-determined state with "less than the original intended goal", then you will never get a peace, and violence becomes its own ends.

Back in the late 1980s I had a late night job in Minneapolis. One night I saw a very young child -- 3 or 4 years old, 5 max -- on a sidewalk riding a tricycle by herself at 2:30 am. Shocking anywhere, but this was in a somewhat rough area. That wasn't trust -- that was neglect. Did I do anything about it? No. I kept on moving. So much for the caring culture. — BC

You can't save everything. If you see abandoned dogs running around, sometimes you can try to see if you can catch them and send to shelter, sometimes you can't, not convenient. The street example might have been too broad. What if the parents are right there and the kid is mindlessly riding his tricycle in the street? Makes sense in a sleepy little cul-de-sac, not so much a street connecting two main roads. Again, this is getting too in the weeds.

My sense is that the culture in many places--small town or city--has become more risk averse, and children tend to be supervised much more closely, though not necessarily the "helicopter" level of risk aversion. High expectations are a part of this: upward mobile -aspiring parents subject their children to a lot of organized activities from an early age -- dance, music, soccer, etc. which are (presumably) intended to help them launch into a rising class. Preschool is the first organized performance step to higher education, even before kindergarten. — BC

This is true. Just unregulated "outdoor play" isn't encouraged as much anymore. You do need a community in the right location for that though.. Unregulated outdoor play could be making forts or it could be learning to make drug deals and stealing catalytic converters. If you are in a forts-like community, that should be encouraged more.

Culture and experience comes into play here. Why didn't the Jews revolt? Strike back? Kill Nazis whenever possible? One reason is that they had been subjected to a severe regime of generalized hatred and repression, wherein they could expect zero sympathy from Germans (or Poles, Ukrainians, etc.) Another is that they were usually unarmed. They were further weakened by hunger, thirst, cold, or heat. — BC

In scenario 1, I was thinking on some stories where Jews did have a chance to fight back after Allies freed camps or even the rare escapees. I'd imagine someone under that much physical torture, the immediate response to people when fleeing/encountering the people that tortured you might not be so positive. I would totally think this different than the kind of situation of Gaza. I think people want to equate the two, as if Gazan violence is akin to psychosis induced labor/death camp conditions of violence.

Why did the Palestinians in Gaza attack Israel? They too were oppressed. Two reasons: First, they weren't subjected to the conditions of the Warsaw ghetto (at least not until October 8, 2023). Gazans actively traded. Food, water, civil services, medical care, etc. was available. Secondly, their culture included resistance -- a la Hamas. They were armed not only with guns and bullets but by rocketsl. Significantly, Hamas was dug in really well. Hamas seems to be / has been more integrated with Gazans than Hesbollah is/has been with the Lebanese people. Hamas seems to be an integral part of Gaza's culture. — BC

Yeah, so you seem to agree with what I said above.

The October 7, 2023 massacre wasn't a spontaneous outburst, but had been planned, prepared for, practiced, and then performed. I don't have any insight into Hamas' reasoning. Did they think Israel would not conduct severe reprisal? Was Israel's retaliation worse than they expected? Do Hamas' managers think they are winning the war? — BC

And this is perhaps where culture comes into play.. Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran, Houthis, etc. Does a generalized view of "oppression" play out differently in different cultures. I mentioned the difference between the Irish Good Friday Agreement, let's say. They too were aggrieved, but compromised. Is that a cultural difference? Does compromise translate in some cultures more easily than others? One problem might be when one takes a cultural habit of "intransigence' and makes it into a universal principle of justice to rationalize it. Someone not actually from the culture, might mistake the two. Or it might be a mix of both.. But I'm not sure how much is political philosophy "JUSTICE" or cultural habit "JUSTICE". The first claims to be a sort of political rationale, the other is sort of an underlying worldview that comes from simply being in that society that is handed down from long-held beliefs of that culture.

Of course, each one of those cases/regions is different, and culture plays a factor in this. At the end of the day, whether uneasy peace or not, the Irish resistance compromised with the British. — schopenhauer1

It took them eight centuries of resistance.

Israel is not going to last eight centuries. It will be lucky if it lasts another eight years by the way things are going.

It took them eight centuries of resistance. — Tzeentch

Eh, I'm not going down a rabbit hole, but I'm just going to separate the "Troubles" from other parts of the history, as the part that started around the 60s and ended in the 90s is where that modern agreement really came about. I'm not saying that the factors for the Troubles didn't start much earlier.. Obviously there had to be the factors that started it...

How is that a rabbit hole? Irish resistance against British rule lasted multiple centuries. The Dutch resisted Habsburg and Spanish rule for hundreds of years too, and fought an eighty-year-long war to end it.

The suggestion that the Palestinians are somehow uniquely violent or unable to compromise simply has no basis in reality.

How is that a rabbit hole? Irish resistance against British rule lasted multiple centuries. The Dutch resisted Habsburg and Spanish rule for hundreds of years too, and fought an eighty-year-long war to end it.

The suggestion that the Palestinians are somehow uniquely violent or unable to compromise simply has no basis in reality. — Tzeentch

The 80s year war between Spanish Empire and Dutch was indeed a long and bloody one, no doubt. In some ways, the modern ideas of smaller nation states freeing themselves from larger imperial entities, came from this and the Thirty Years Wars.

But this is exactly my point- what makes something a political versus a cultural feature? Look at a another example from the Dutch- how they handled Belgium's plea for independence in 1830. So, can there be a difference between how war was carried out in the Early Modern Era, versus the later modern era? So even the Irish centuries of war, by the time it came to violence in the 20th century, was more-or-less resolved within 30-40 years. Belgium was granted independence in 1830 with an initial violent suppression that then let up a year later. As time moved forward, conflicts get resolved more quickly.. Due to various factors like technology, "Enlightened" thinking, and such, cultural values can change. Obviously that can go for better or worse.. Germany obviously is an example going the other way. I can even say that the militarism of the 1870s contributed to WWI and certainly WW2 in Germany, and so that yes, culture played a factor there.. But at the same time, other cultural forces, like Enlightenment values (prior to WW2), allowed Germany to move forward rather quickly after their defeat. Just like the 80s year war and the Belgium independence possibly played a factor in the rather passive role of the Dutch in the 20th century.

But certainly, the idea of glorification of "martyrdom", and educational role of violent resistance, and how how death is viewed in this resistance plays a role in how one carries out violence. And so, whilst not inherent in a "people", it can be harder for a certain culture to move forward because of this.

If the IRA and Palestinians were comparable, that would mean the IRA seeks to conquer England and install rigid Catholic rule. It would state in their Constitution their absolute commitment to conquering London.

You have really opened up a can of worms here :D

Next on the agenda .. Race! Is 'race' cultural? Can we blame a 'race' because race=culture in some respects.

I honestly do not think this discussion will get far because people here are too emotional about such topics. Culture is a many-headed hydra! It is an umbrella term that covers pretty much every aspect of human life.

At the end of the day I do not really think you can blame a whole body of people. People are stupid, so it is hardly their fault for coming up with ideas that are mistaken nor it is the fault of the stupid who know no better following them blindly into the fray.

The simple truth is most of us would have been the prison guard at the concentration camp rather than the one standing up against genocide. The best hope we have is to realise the monster we see in others is only possible because we recognise it in ourselves. The more repulsive something is to us the more likely we are to refuse we are capable of such a crime ... unfortunately this is usually a sign that we would be that repulsive monster.

It seems that it is culturally entrenched, if one doubles down on a (violent) strategy that has actually helped make the situation worse, not better. — schopenhauer1

:100:

This scenario doesn't seem to fall at all under the first two which would cause a form of psychosis in the intensity and kind of harm taking place.. It's not enslavement/death camp levels of suffering. — schopenhauer1

There's no comparing Gaza to slavery or a Nazi concentration camp. The question of the slave is interesting: There was the case of Nat Turner, an escaped slave who went on a rampage killing white people in the South. I think most would say this is wrong but there remains sympathy for it in some circles. It is understandable on some level how the oppressed class could harbor such hatred for not only their direct oppressors, but everyone of that group. Still wrong, but understandable. The Gaza situation is obviously far removed from that as you mention. I know of no cases where concentration camp survivors went house to house murdering Germans.

If the IRA and Palestinians were comparable — BitconnectCarlos

They are not. The IRA were a terrorist organisation and the Palestinians are a population of people. Maybe you meant IRA and Hamas? In which case I would not agree. The IRA were not genocidal.

Maybe you meant IRA and Hamas? — I like sushi

:up:

In which case I would not agree. The IRA were not genocidal. — I like sushi

:100:

About 2 million Germans were murdered in reprisal genocides across Eastern Europe towards the end of and immediately following WWII. Perhaps 3 million. Over 10 million were expropriated and displaced. Mass killings and rapes are extremely well documented here.

Previously Germans were settled throughout the eastern half of Europe; they virtually don't exist there anymore.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%931950)

Obviously the Red Army is the key culprit in terms of allowing its soldiers to loot and rape on foreign lands with almost absolute impunity, particularly in Germany and the Balkans, but partisans and civilians took part in this too.

West Germany put the figure at 14.6 million of which only 6.8% were new arrivals moved east during the war into the Third Reich's conquests.

But certainly, the idea of glorification of "martyrdom", and educational role of violent resistance, and how how death is viewed in this resistance plays a role in how one carries out violence. And so, whilst not inherent in a "people", it can be harder for a certain culture to move forward because of this. — schopenhauer1

Glorification of martyrdom (achieved in cultural indoctrination) seems like it has to tap into the motivational power of the limbic system--which is provided by nature. Nothing too odd about that -- soldiers are prepared to fight (and die, perhaps) through indoctrination and "feeling the burn" of hitting the beach, going over the top of the ridge, moving forward under fire. Adrenalin plays a role here.

I don't know what, exactly, suicide bomber martyrs feel just before they blow themselves up in a crowded cafe. Maybe not much of an adrenalin kick, maybe not much of a highly motivated limbic burn. After all, they don't want to give themselves away too soon, by looking like an hysterical crazy person, for instance. Maybe they feel a beatific calm.

In any case, their emotions must be in service to, and subservient to, the thinking part of the brain.

Of course, our limbic systems are behind a lot of ordinary behavior, not just the extremes of battle and martyring one's self. Guilt, for instance, is "a gift that keeps on giving". It a powerful motivator and suppressor of behavior. It's shaped by culture (nurturing parents and their value system) early on. Other institutions step in to nail down particular cultural values. Then we're kind of stuck with it, unless we work very hard at reprogramming ourselves, to whatever extent reprogramming is possible.

Aside from good luck or outside intervention, the small percentage of people who survived the Nazi concentration camps, the Soviet gulags, or Gaza...) had to have strong minds and strong emotional (limbic system) machinery.

Culture is important, but it isn't enough.

Here is a joke about Islam's martyrs:

Question: How many virgins will I have in heaven after I am martyred?

Answer: 72 beautiful women to do with as you please.

Question: What will women get in heaven after they are martyred?

Answer: One faithful man.

don't know what, exactly, suicide bomber martyrs feel just before they blow themselves up in a crowded cafe. Maybe not much of an adrenalin kick, maybe not much of a highly motivated limbic burn. After all, they don't want to give themselves away too soon, by looking like an hysterical crazy person, for instance. Maybe they feel a beatific calm. — BC

Glorification of martyrdom (achieved in cultural indoctrination) seems like it has to tap into the motivational power of the limbic system--which is provided by nature. Nothing too odd about that -- soldiers are prepared to fight (and die, perhaps) through indoctrination and "feeling the burn" of hitting the beach, going over the top of the ridge, moving forward under fire. Adrenalin plays a role here. — BC

What about holding hostages of another country which in turn holds your own people hostage? Your version is 20 years old. Though I know trends make a come back :death:

Edit 2: To continue the line of thought that ↪Leontiskos, if let's say a culture simply had built-in (extremely) violent responses to injustices, and then someone was not from that culture but promoted (extremely) violent responses to injustices, but advocated it out of philosophical regard, if we determined the extreme violence was "bad", would the philosophical regard agent be worse than the cultural agent? — schopenhauer1

Yes, because there is a greater level of intentionality involved in the badness of the second person. They are doing the bad thing more purposefully and intentionally.

Yes, because there is a greater level of intentionality involved in the badness of the second person. They are doing the bad thing more purposefully and intentionally. — Leontiskos

I basically agree. Now, the more complex question though, is when does it become incumbent upon people of a certain culture to evaluate a possible negative cultural trait/feature to see if it needs to change?

If in a previous culture, dogs were allowed to roam around a village, sometimes getting injured, sometimes getting lost, mostly doing "ok", getting fed by all the people of the village, and then in the new culture, dogs are supposed to be solely the responsibility of a certain person/family at a certain boundary of property for the safety/well-being of others who might be affected as well as the animal's welfare, at what point should the previous culture adopt/adapt to the new culture, if at all? At what point might one take the new cultural feature (FOR ETHICAL/PHILOSOHPICAL/REASONED considerations) and change the previous culture, if at all? [Please note, I don't mean change to "fit in", but because one has reasoned it's in some way axiologically perceived as a better/improved cultural habit.]

This of course, is a very mild example. There are more extreme ones revolving around education, "rights", martyrdom, and a whole host of things. It also gets tricky because "culture" can easily be misconstrued with "political philosophy" (think the individualism of Anglo-American culture vs. the social democracy of Scandinavian countries perhaps).

Now, the more complex question though, is when does it become incumbent upon people of a certain culture to evaluate a possible negative cultural trait/feature to see if it needs to change?

...

At what point might one take the new cultural feature and change the previous culture, if at all? — schopenhauer1

I don't think there is an easy answer to this, but I would say that a bad habit should change when it is self-consciously recognized to be a bad habit and the necessary resources to make a change are available. This applies to individuals and cultures.

The flip side of this has to do with external judgment and external influence. We can ask about the self-reflective question of self-change, or we can ask about the question of changing another. For example, the interventions into World War II on the part of the Allied powers were in part motivated by a judgment of German actions which was external to Germany itself. That is, when speaking of the war, Germany did not seek to change itself. Instead, an external set of agents sought to change Germany.

That is, when speaking of the war, Germany did not seek to change itself. Instead, an external set of agents sought to change Germany. — Leontiskos

Sure, but there was something in German society at that time whereby when the leadership was defeated, and the country basically conquered militarily, there was no further uprisings/insurrections. That is to say, the country had traditions, or a sense of "unification" (in its government/leadership) whereby formal treaties of war are respected and followed (even if they had the most despicable forms of rule of all humanity prior to that formal surrender). One can imagine a different cultural milieu, in which insurrections of ex-military or rogue groups, kept the fight going continuously, even using terrorist methods of asymmetrical warfare. Places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and other parts of the Middle East, would be a different story in terms of how a military defeats a region. Of course, this might have less to do with culture than political arrangements (fractured leadership, ethnic divides, non-unified sense of national identity).

Of course, this might have less to do with culture than political arrangements — schopenhauer1

Yes, I think it is widely recognized that it flowed from political arrangements, namely because the aftermath of WWII was different from the aftermath of WWI in precisely the respect you identify. In fact the political arrangements that followed WWII were a recalibration of the failed political arrangements that followed WWI. It therefore seems more likely that the difference was due to postwar political arrangements rather than the nature of German culture.

I don't think there is an easy answer to this, but I would say that a bad habit should change when it is self-consciously recognized to be a bad habit and the necessary resources to make a change are available. This applies to individuals and cultures. — Leontiskos

At what point though is it incumbent upon the person with the "bad (cultural) habit" to change them, ethically? When it leads to harm? When should a cultural habit that leads to possible harm be excused?