Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 158988

> montims:
> but he was, wasn't he, the commander of their (unofficial) army?  
That being
> (if so) the case, you don't question your commander's decisions or 
actions
> or orders - it's not a democracy, it's a chain of command.  And 
yes, he
> should have an appointed second in command, but even that person is 
supposed
> to obey without question.  He was considered, rightly or wrongly, 
to be the
> greatest wizard of his time, and he had defeated Grindelwald.  He 
was also
> charismatic - kind of the WW Winston Churchill.  With hindsight, we 
can
> criticise Winston, but at the time he was instrumental in keeping 
Britain
> free, and upholding morale.

Alla:

Mmmm, Dumbledore is their leader,yes, leader of the resistance,yes, 
again, but I thought that the fact that Order is not an official army 
adds a lot of ambiguity as to obey without question attitude.

I would think that if we see so clearly that Voldemort requires that 
very attitude from his DE IMO, that is something that Light side 
would not want to follow?

I mean, certainly unquestionable orders should be obeyed I suppose, 
but the orders that do raise questions? I don't know.

And here we see again how Dumbledore different hats get in conflict 
IMO. He is not only Leader of the resistance, he is also Headmaster 
of the school, and his constant absences from school that 
theoretically leave his students more open to attacks are IMO meant 
to be questioned.

Him keeping the events of the prophecy from Harry in OOP is done 
because he wanted to spare Harry from extra pain supposedly, so it is 
meant to be questioned as well ( and as we see Sirius wanted to do 
the very thing Dumbledore admitted he needed to do - tell Harry).

I mean, I suppose if the only Hat Dumbledore wore was the leader of 
the resistance, I guess more of his orders were supposed to obey 
without question ( still not all, I would say, I don't have much 
experience with the army, basically none :), but won't the soldier be 
excused if he refused to obey stupid order, order that will harm him 
and/or his comrades for no reason? I don't mean the order to fight, 
obviously, but something really stupid and unnecessary?)

I am not sure if Dumbledore wanted to be a dictator and IMO him 
stepping aside on other occasions as Headmaster,etc and letting 
people make their own choices shows that, but IMO yes, his orders 
should had been questioned much much more than Churchill's were, 
because being a prime minister was his only hat, no?
 
> Leading myself off on to a digression - assuming DD didn't actually 
kill
> Grindelwald, could he be in Azkaban now or in the past?  Would he 
have been
> Kissed?
> 

Alla:

I don't think that Grindelwald was killed either. I think the word 
**defeated** was used on purpose, but where is he now, I have no clue.

JMO,

Alla