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
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
Have to say this, in the 19th Century those laws of war or basically civilized conduct was followed many times far more as during our more "civilized" times. It is especially after the slaughter of WW1, the extensive propaganda effort to dehumanize the enemy and the ideological charge to the war effort that changed the way we look at war. With WW2 it turned even worse. As I've said earlier, the only modern conflict where rules of war were followed by both sides was the conflict on remote islands in the Southern Atlantic between the UK and Argentina.Churchill was a creature of 19th century British imperialism (and culture). As such he may have met the standard of being a "war criminal" even while sleeping. — tim wood
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. — jamalrob
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
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
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
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. — jamalrob
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. — jamalrob
Don't think I'm making a case for you to attack - although there is always the possibility of education. But rather that I think you do not have one. And if I may - you can disqualify this if you like- this encompasses the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Both unspeakable. Both arguably justifiable. And both outside the bounds of ordinary moral discourse - although that does not stop the attempt. Nor does it prevent individuals from making their own moral choices - a different topic. But I find and hold, until better informed, that in this instance you're estopped from making the war-criminal charge stick, Because you cannot make the case. Because there is no case to make. — tim wood
And your actor is not an individual, but the state - in this case acting for its survival. — tim wood
that at least Hitler kept his attacks within the purview of international law, — Hanover
Specifically with respect to the Battle of Britain this was true. And this only concerns the way war was waged, Hitler was still the aggressor which means everything that followed was unjust. — Benkei
My view and the view in my country would be a bit different, of course.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. — jamalrob
He and she does know that the system sucked, but still has a lot of pride in Juri Gagarin being the first man in space. There actually is no problem in this view. — ssu
or any other form of aggregation. — Paul Edwards
But isn't it always a matter of degree of responsibility that the citizens have for their leader's actions as opposed to offering the citizens full absolution? — Hanover
I'm really having some amount of difficulty hearing the cries of the German citizens over the cries of those who were executed by their government. — Hanover
Assuming international law is not an authority on morality and assuming retribution is a valid militaristic response to an unprovoked attacked, do you agree that Churchill was justified in bombing Dresden? — Hanover
I think a comprehensive response to 9/11 will involve getting people to think of themselves as individuals rather than as a member of some race/religion/sex/nationality or any other form of aggregation. — Paul Edwards
but none of the attempted replacements so far seem to work very well
Well the subject of this thread is "liberal imperialism". Is that classified as an attempted replacement and do you think it works well? — Paul Edwards
As for the Philippines, I'm confused as to what your point is. Its history doesn't seem to be a good advert for American interference.
At the end of the war USAAF was running out of targets, so they were also targeting individual houses. And I remember Chuck Yeager in his memoirs telling that they got orders designating a small patch of land in Germany to each fighter, where they should attack everything that moved. At least in his memoirs Yeager told that they thought the order to be so bonkers, that they just flew around and left the rare civilian driving his bicycle alone.(although I'm pretty sure they didn't bomb many farmers). — jamalrob
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.