Here are the two postings that, historically speaking, and with reference to Godwin's Law, that I took offense towards:
'In war...stuff happens'. Very true, but if we refuse to pass any kind of judgement does that mean we must also refuse to pass judgement on, say, the actions of the Einsatzgruppen during World War II - actions, remember, that were carried out with the co-operation and support of the Wehrmacht? Or does the lack of judgement apply only to actions carried out before a certain point in history? And if so, what should we take as the cut-off point? I wholly agree that we should not judge the actions of people in earlier centuries by the standards of our own time, but rather by the standards of their time. But surely, there must be some kind of judgement.- otherwise we end up with the kind of vacuous argument that says all points of view are equally valid, which clearly they are not (unless we want to argue that serial killers and paedophiles have valid points of view...points of view, certainly - but valid? I think not. Slippery slope there, folks.).'
'No, I rather think it's you who have missed the point. I am not equating Napoleon's actions with the slaughter of innocents in World War II, I am simply saying that if one is never to pass any kind of judgement on what happens in war (which has been suggested on here, though not by you, as far as I am aware), then any kind of atrocity becomes judgement-free. I was simply using the actions of the Einsatzgruppen as an example. There is a vast amount of difference between what happens when one is being shot at, and the deliberate murder of civilians by military authorities. Those members of the Wehrmacht who collaborated with the Einsatzgruppen were not under fire when they aided and abetted the latter. I am not passing judgement on Napoleon at all, as you will see if you actually read my post without going off half-cocked; I can accept Boney as he was, warts and all, without feeling the need to denigrate him in any way. Not all Brits view him as the Corsican Ogre!'
So, if you were not attempting to make the odious comparison, probably by inference, why bring it up at all?