AY, I believe that there is a difference between stating a halachic argument on a halachic matter in dispute – where being a bar plugta is integral to the halachic process, as compared to objective recognition that advocating for people not to do what is necessary to save their families potentially contributed or led to their deaths are two different things. One speaks to halachic competence, and the other speaks to imperative influence.
I do not think one must be a bar plugta to recognize objective facts. And I do not think that recognition of objective facts disrespects or denigrates that Godol.
If a “godol” (or anyone else) were to advocate today that the sun revolved around the earth, Anyone with 11th grade physics could demonstrate the impossibility of that and hence have the “plaitzes” to disagree. On the other hand, making a halachic determination of significance and complexity isn’t something just anyone can figure out or even be taught – it demands years of experience and application as well as knowledge. And assuming that one has taken on that Gadol or Posek as their halachic determinant, arguing against them could be presumptuous, even if it isn’t quite disrespectful.
And I have to admit I’ve crossed that line myself. Though I don’t feel questioning the action or inaction or lack of communication of reasoning of a manhig ventures into the halachic realm, I could be wrong, and I’ve done my best to tone that down, though I won’t stop advocating for clarity, transparency, responsibility and no double standards. If I have argued halachic decisions and not brought support from a bar plugta, that’s also wrong.
Nothing I or anyone else does appropriately or inappropriately takes away from the fact that even the greatest gedolim are like us created betzelem elokim and are thank G-d human and fallible exemplars for us.