My view and the view in my country would be a bit different, of course. — ssu

Well, everything in your post is consistent with the post of mine that you replied to, and I agree with you.

My disagreement is not fundamentally with your principles but with your approach. — Baden

This brought to my mind the imagined scenario of a social democrat saying this to Felix Dzerzhinsky during the Red Terror.

@Hanover Also, I'm just curious: was Stalin a hero as well?

My own position on this question is about the same for Stalin as for Churchill: the cause of fighting the Nazis was a good one, and we can be thankful that they were victorious, and they certainly had personal qualities that helped the Allies win, but to call them heroes doesn't seem right to me. Most Russians are proud of their victory against the Nazis, but they're mostly not very enamoured of Stalin himself.

Of course, it's fair to say that unlike Churchill, Stalin had signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler and only joined the Allies because Hitler broke it. But I don't think Churchill's motivations were much more noble, old-fashioned imperialist that he was.

In case it's not obvious, I'm not saying Churchill's crimes were as bad as Stalin's.

There seems to be what I'll call a "combatant's exception," where we allow some degree of excuse (or at least we mitigate our evaluation of the severity of the infraction) when the person committing the act is in the heat of battle. It's for that reason that court martials are notoriously lenient. If a soldier fires off too many rounds after fighting for his life, we tend to allow for some degree of overkill (literally). You see the same with the current shootings by police, although those have been called into question because the concern is the overkill is not motivated by uncontrollable emotion, but by racism. This exception would also apply to those in the command center, not just on the ground, so it could apply to Churchill as well. This exception appears to be acknowledged by both you and Benkei. You've stated that you're not willing to call the bombings of Berlin a war crime and Benkei specifically stated he did not see a moral equivalence between the Nazi crimes and the crimes of Churchill. — Hanover

Agreed.

I tend to think the pain doled out on civilian populations by the Nazis leaves them in a difficult position to argue that they were being disproportionately punished by the bombings over Germany. — Hanover

But in what sense was it the Nazis who were being punished? I think in no sense at all, but I suppose you have another view. I think I could accept your interpretation of Kantian retributive justice as it applies to war (which I think is controversial, but never mind) without accepting that incinerating innocent Germans amounted to retribution against the Nazis.

Additionally, I entirely disagree with an assessment that Churchill was not a hero even if I were to agree that the bombings of civilian German targets was entirely unjustified. I can easily divide Churchill's dogged refusal to submit to the Nazi onslaught and his unrelenting effort to protect his island and the greater Western world with his decision to bomb civilian targets. That one saves humanity on Monday and engages in acts of depravity on Tuesday doesn't make me reassess their heroism on Monday. It simply means that people are complex and nuanced and that real life superheroes don't exist are still human beings. — Hanover

I have a slightly different view of Churchill, but I'm happy to go along with this here, and I think I made it more or less explicit in my mention of Churchill. My post was not aiming towards a reassessment of Churchill as a leader, a person, a hero, or whatever. Rather, it was a plea for the acknowledgement of all acts of depravity.

I think the original point of Benkei's that you objected to was this: "The Blitz still targeted docks and war effort manufacturing. It was Churchill who went for the jugular." The thing is, in the context of Britain and Germany's bombing of each other, this is a fact. That you took Benkei to be implying a general equivalency is partly why I accused you of kneejerk reaction.

I don't get to hear radio 4 around here, not available — Sir2u

It's available online, last I checked. Has been for many years. It isn't blocked like TV (but there's a way around the block anyway).

I even use Street View to look for the places sometimes — Sir2u

I do that too, often when listening to podcasts or reading books.

After listening to it I was a bit disappointed, entertained yes but not informed. — Sir2u

Bad luck. There are many unsatisfactory podcasts around, just like books, movies, everything.

Trump didn't do shit of substance in the Middle East — Baden

Apparently the killing of Qasem Soleimani substantially hurt the Iranian efforts to dominate the Middle East.

Incidentally, I know some Russians who make excuses for the rape of two million women in Germany by Soviet troops at the end of the war. To make excuses like this I think is a thoughtless instinct, and it's the same phenomenon in these two cases.

:up:

Sorry, misread it.

You don't think Slaughterhouse-Five is a condemnation?

Marxism: man is primarily a labourer: physical labour being the only way leading to the fulfillment of his physical needs with all other needs being denied or rated as inferior. — Daniel C

There may have been Marxists who believed this, but Marx certainly did not. "Marx held a consistent view that our human nature was expressed in a drive to spontaneously and creatively produce products in a manner that is conducive to social and individual satisfaction."

Marx's view of human nature
Marx's theory of human nature

talk just to talk style that is used so often today an the radio — Sir2u

I'm not sure what you mean, but I was referring primarily to radio 4 and the World Service.

Are all other horrors of war so eclipsed by the Holocaust that we no longer have any usable scale by which we can condemn them? Can we condemn them as much as they ought (in my view) to be condemned without being falsely accused of equating them with the Holocaust? — Peter Hitchens

Is the motivation for defending Britain's deliberate bombing of civilians that giving even an inch to those who condemn it would be seen to moderate one's uncompromising opposition to everything the Nazis did and stood for? I don't understand it otherwise. And even this motivation is difficult to understand except as a thoughtless kneejerk reaction. It seems to me that your moral authority is only enhanced by facing up to the crimes perpetrated by your own side. After all, if anything you do can be justified by "but Nazis" then you don't have much of a morality at all.

As for the idea that condemning the bombings excuses or diminishes the atrocities of the Nazis, I just find it bizarre. Note that British historians right across the political spectrum condemn the actions. Not all would label it as a war crime, but none of them, as far as I know, think that the earth-shattering horror of the Holocaust makes everything the Allies did somehow all right.

Myself, I also hesitate to label it as a war crime, partly because I'm simply uncomfortable, unlike Benkei, with a legalistic framing of such things, even if I can admit that international law has its place, given that we do live in a war-torn world. But to me, the law here would seem to me just to normalize the war, and to simplify it, to isolate specific actions that have to be understood in context, etc. Anyway, that's beside the point. The point being that killing those people was an inexcusable evil.

To condemn the targeting of innocent people, who included children, the old, and the sick--to say it was evil, as I do, is not to say that the war effort was evil, that RAF personnel were evil, or even that Harris or Churchill were evil--and it is not to draw an equivalency between the bombing and the exterminations carried out by the Nazis.

Would any Allied action have been justified? Would it have been "yeah it was bad but we were fighting the Nazis" if the Allies had, after liberation, continued to use the concentration camps and death camps, this time to murder German people in exactly the same way as the Nazis used them? People who were not in any sense responsible for the Nazis? Would you simply shout "Payback" in that case too? (As it happens, the Soviets did continue to use the camps for a while, especially for political prisoners, though not to gas people)

Peter Hitchens is an extremely unfashionable conservative but he has a lot of good stuff to say about the issue:

I get into no end of trouble for my position on this. I am told that I am unpatriotic, even now, for discussing it or for being distressed by the extreme and horrible cruelties inflicted by our bombs on innocent women and children, who could not conceivably be held responsible for Hitler’s crimes. On the contrary, I believe it is the duty of a proper patriot to criticize his country where he believes it to have done wrong.

I am told I am defaming the memory of the bomber crews. I have never done so, and never will. They had little idea of what they were doing, died terrible deaths in terrible numbers thanks to the ruthless squandering of life by their commanders, and showed immense personal courage. It is those who, knowing what was being done, ordered them into battle that I blame.

I am told that I am equating our bombing of Germany with the German mass murder of the Jews, when I would not dream of making such a comparison, never have done so and never will. I am told that I am excusing the mass murder of the Jews, when nothing could ever excuse it and I should certainly never attempt to do so. Is it still necessary to say that two wrongs do not make a right, and that one horribly wrong thing may be worse than another horribly wrong thing, and yet they may both still be horribly wrong, examined by themselves as actions? — Peter Hitchens

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2015/02/the-bombing-files-arguments-against-the-raf-bombing-of-german-civilians-summed-up.html

Welcome to the forum Lutz :smile:

the search for reality — Lutz

Try and remember where you last saw it.

This discussion was merged into Time Isn't Real

Judaka is right: It's been entertaining but let's stop being silly. I'll start deleting anything that's not a serious and thoughtful contribution to the discussion.

We're so dastardly.

Think of it like talk radio. If you've ever enjoyed listening to that, then you'd enjoy podcasts. In fact, there are many BBC radio podcasts.

Ok, everyone chill out, have a cup of tea.

In my defence, it's an easy mistake to make around here.

But what did I say that was false? Lay it out concisely: what is the problem?

To see him as someone who is dedicated to the Russian state while not disputing his net worth of $70b and those are low estimates. — Judaka

I did not dispute his personal enrichment.

So what's the problem here? Firstly, this is an almost entirely positive characterisation and secondly, it's really quite objectionable. Let us imagine that you rephrased this exact same statement as "well, here are some positive things about Putin" then we can solve the first part and you can say "well, here are some positive things about Stalin" or whoever else you want and I won't care. — Judaka

But I was trying to explain what is important to Russian people. I explicitly said, he is, or has been, genuinely popular because... and went on to attempt a really basic explanation. Do you know better?

The popularity of a leader in an authoritarian state cannot be treated seriously. — Judaka

That's war talk, nothing more. It's a justification for rejecting any views from Russia that you don't like. Do you think the Russian people are oppressed and want the help from outside powers? The very idea, even among opponents of Putin, is laughable and contemptible.

Thank you for explaining your position. I don't think I sang Putin's praises or justified his leadership. I just want to understand what's going on. You seem to have an axe to grind. Me, I confess that the anti-Russian propaganda in the US and the UK seems to me significantly stupid, but that doesn't mean I reject all criticism of the Russian regime. I would like to see some intelligent and informed discussion. Nothing hinges on who wins this argument. Nothing. So we may as well be fair and honest. What is your problem? What have I said that you think is false?

But to the question of whether the totalitarian regime during the USSR years was good or evil (should we be left with that limited dichotomy), I'd say evil, standing in opposition to the values many of us hold so dear. — Hanover

I agree, but I didn't actually see that question come up. Did it?

Otherwise, it was a beautifully crafted post and I enjoyed reading it.

How much experience to they have with democracy? Are local decisions made democratically? Are judges elected? — frank

@SophistiCat could probably give better answers than me. Before I married a Russian I knew about Russia from 1890 to the 1940s, but not much else. SophistiCat's knowledge of Russian society and culture seems much deeper.

But for what it's worth, there isn't much democratic choice locally, like in Moscow, than there is nationally. I can't speak for other regions. I don't know much about the judiciary.

But he's also a savvy leader, no denying that. He could very well be doing what he believes is in the best interest of Russia as a state. But does that preclude someone from being a criminal? — BitconnectCarlos

No, of course it doesn't. I don't understand this black and white thinking, on a philosophy forum of all places. Are we just slaves to propaganda, or can we discuss things rationally and imaginatively? It's as if you guys are not satisfied until I do the correct virtue signalling, like saying Putin is a monster or whatever. It's just dumb.

Some of that fear of the "chaotic 90s," as well as the nostalgia for the good old days of the Soviet rule has been helped along by state propaganda. So is the idea of Putin riding in to save the day in 1999. A lot of the economic recovery during 2000s can be quite simply accounted by the booming oil prices and the accompanying rise in Russia's oil and gas production. — SophistiCat

Yes. And yes, Putin was lucky.

Is Russia pretty liberated from their horrendous 20th Century experience, or are they still scarred? — frank

Among the people I know and their parents, there's a lot of nostalgia and affection for Soviet times, but WW2 still leaves scars, because most families lost a few members.

But the most immediately painful scars are from the 1990s. Nobody wants to go back to that, and that's partly why Putin has been popular. Pro- and anti-Putin often agree that he did what had to be done in his first years in power. Anti-Putin people differ now in thinking, come on, that's enough, time to go.

I have never seen it referenced by either side of the debate — David Cleo

Darkness is briefly mentioned in the colour entry on the IEP when discussing dispositionalism. It seems to suggest that unlike naive colour realism (primitivism or non-reductive realism), dispositionalism better deals with darkness.

Maybe like this: the apple is red but I just can't see it.

There are spies everywhere, I assure you

Kinda makes sense.

By the way comrades, we currently have $144 USD in our PayPal account, and that's after the monthly $49.99 came out on Nov 1st. So we're doing all right, so long as PlushForums don't bump us up to the higher rate--which I actually expected long before now.

Sincere thanks to everyone who has contributed. It's much appreciated, because let's face it, who wants to see ads in this haven of sanity--er, you know what I mean.

The money just sits there and covers the monthly hosting cost and some other hosting-related stuff. (Except for the funds that I funnel down to the Donbass People's Militia, of course)

hotheaded, ginger, Dutch firebrand @Benkei — The Opposite

I really lolled

:cool:

On the other hand, I could interpret you as saying that the parallel case is true, namely that Putin is both corrupt--the top silovarch who has used his power to become mega-rich--and dedicated to the security, stability, and prosperity of his country, as he sees it.

Sounds about right. Unless you've read back over the past couple of pages, it's unlikely you did mean that, but it's a good angle nonetheless. And it's actually implied in what I wrote: "makes it look as if Hitler was just a greedy sado-racist", and "the idea that Putin is merely a gangster out for himself".

Oy vey

Talking to these cold warriors is like this:

silly person: Hitler invaded Poland and the Soviet Union so he could kill more Jews and steal their gold!
jamalrob: That is a misrepresentation of the Nazi project, and it makes it look as if Hitler was just a greedy sado-racist. His invasion was a form of colonialism based on the principle of Lebensraum, or "living space" for the German people. With the Nazis, this principle, which went back to the late nineteenth century, took on a more virulent form, combined as it was with the notion of the Aryan master race and the assumed inferiority of the Slavic and Jewish peoples. Hitler's territorial expansion Eastwards, and the extreme measures considered necessary to ensure its success, were thus based on and justified by the racialist dehumanization of the local populations. So killing the Jews, rather than the Nazis' central aim, was merely a means to the end of German and Aryan hegemony.
silly person: Hitler apologist!

Yes. Many Russians repeat Putin's half-truth that he reasserted state control over the oligarchs and took back the country's assets, but of course, the relationship is not so simple. As you suggest, it's more like the Tsar with the boyars in medieval times: the oligarchs are still around.

You list some truths, but your comments about Russia's "imperialistic ambitions" and defence spending don't fit my understanding at all, and your last sentence is just silly. So you've nailed your colours to the mast. Well, okay, but that's not what this discussion is for.

How would you characterize him and his — tim wood

Putin is a ruthless authoritarian who (1) sincerely believes that what he's doing is best for Russia and is dedicated to the Russian state, which he sees as a continuous and almost unbroken line of strong rulers going back centuries (this is not necessarily a recommendation, but it's far from mere gangsterism), (2) is genuinely popular, because (2i) he brought stability, security, and some economic improvement following the traumatic disaster of shock therapy in the nineties, and (2ii) he prevented the breakup of Russia by making an example of Chechnya.