|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: When did World War II become a just war?
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Oh dear, Think, you got caught in the headlights of an IHR article.
The Institute for Historical Review is a known Holocaust-denial organization and outlet for radical right-wing revisionism.
Oh bugger. Will go look for another source - however,the content of that specific article is similar to what I was taught when studying history at school.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I have found a slightly more respectable source.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
That Wikipedia article is really no better, it gives undue weight to revisionist arguments without evaluation, and for this reason quite rightly has a neutrality dispute tag on the top of the page. Wikipedia is a fantastic resource when it comes to verifiable facts, but not on pages like that where you get each side lining up their opinions one by one.
If you're going to refer to a Wikipedia articles, at least pick a good one which is based on fact rather than opinion. Note the little gold star in the top-right corner of the page, and the absence of a neutrality dispute tag.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Well I never mdijon, mere rhetoric, I expect more from an armchair warrior. When I was your age I certainly would have carpet bombed you.
Does ANYBODY get it here?
Jesus, the express image of the Father, son of God and man, STILL human, did WHAT?
Would do WHAT?
Be a hypocrite? In 1941 ? '45 ? '33 ? '14 ? 2012 ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Jesus lived in a world where the Nazis had won, had been in ascendancy for two hundred years. Their genocides were past. Although their worst was yet to come: the Jewish War. As He prophesied. His way subverted them even though it suffered subversion itself from the second century. A lesson for us all. A subversion we're still suffering.
The argument about WWJD cannot be answered even by reference to Jesus himself, because, as has been pointed out…
“Jesus lived in a world where the Nazis had won, had been in ascendancy for two hundred years.”
Christ CHOSE to be incarnated at the time of his own choosing, which was after the “Nazis” – by which I presume we mean Romans – had conquered and won.
If Christ had CHOSEN to come back when the conquering was going on, his message and the answers to WWJD might have been clearer to us. But that is to second-guess Him. All I know is he came back when the “bad” guys had won and had been in charge for decades.
And that determines how we get his message. We can’t take His message out of that context without serious contemplation, prayer and debate. Soundbite theology never works.
So we have no idea what Jesus would have done, and anyone who knows what He would have done, has not understood the problem.
I suppose my thinking about this issue is coloured by two books I’ve recently read…
(1) The Origins of the Second World War by AJP Taylor
(2) The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes
In terms of the fire-bombing of Japan, Rhodes describes the thinking behind that. Japanese industry at the time was almost completely distributed across the civilian population. Each home had a machine tool of some sort such as a drill press or what have you. Manufacturing arms was a family business! Each family would produce some small machined part and they would be shipped off to a central factory where they would be assembled into the complete weapon. How do you precision bomb then? You cannot. Hence the firebombing of workers homes began to try to disrupt the arms manufacturing. In many cases, the only things left standing after the fires were the machine tools.
There were debates about inviting some senior Japanese officers to witness the first test explosions at Trinity, an idea pushed hardest by Leo Szilard, but this was rejected as pointless. It was felt that they would be ignored by the even more senior soldiers and vested interests back in Japan who had not seen it.
One of the compelling passages in Rhodes book is where he describes teh deaths of schoolgirls in Hiroshima who were clearing the roads of rubble from previous bombing. They were clearing them to enable the parts made in the houses to be shipped to the assembly factories. There you have war in all its complex, disgusting glory.
In terms of pacific martyrdom, to defeat that, all you really need is someone who is prepared to keep nailing up the bodies on the crosses, regardless of the complaints. Of course if you physically intervene then it is no longer pacifist is it. Like cows waiting for slaughter, well thanks but no thanks. God gave me a brain and arms and the capacity to make both swords and ploughshares, and sometime both are needed in this imperfect world.
Jesus did say "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21). But he didn’t proscribe what the things to be rendered are. If the particular Caesar would be a better ruler if a .303 bullet is rendered to Caesar’s head at 1200 mph, then I think we ought to – at least consider - rendering it.
(I’m no Biblical scholar, and I suppose someone will come up with something Jesus said, that better defends the rights of people to overthrow oppressors)
The Second World War was started by mismanagement and pride. Most British people believed that the Danzig Corridor in Poland was rightfully Germany’s and if it had been given back early in the 1930’s, Hitler would never have invaded Poland. Again, most British public opinion thought that the Rhineland occupation was inevitable at some point and the French were wrong to oppose it.
So the war was by no means inevitable BECAUSE of Versailles, but the lack of willingness to renegotiate it made it so. To me, that stops the war from being “Just” at that point. We were reaping the rewards of what we had sown. However, given that Germany then went beyond its pre-war demands and took territory it had no historical claims on, and began the systematic slaughter of Jews, gypsies, communists, and the handicapped, then the war did become “Just”.
That is my own view after reading those histories.
[ 28. November 2012, 11:11: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So mate, as I don't understand the 'problem' - I don't even see one - how would Jesus have made the little children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffer ?
And thanks for quoting me.
If He were incarnate in 1945 ?
Which of course, in all senses, He was.
Including in us.
I've been the ONLY one championing, justifying God the (loving, pragmatic) Killer here, consistently, for 14 years.
And now I'm questioning that, I'm so glad to see others having the courage of that conviction coming out of the woodwork.
Oh and by the way, when the Romans went completely Nazi on Jerusalem and Christians, what did Jesus in His followers do ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And now I'm questioning that, I'm so glad to see others having the courage of that conviction coming out of the woodwork.
Questioning is good, but it doesn't mean that you are right!
They are your convictions, not mine, and not many others from what I've read.
It seems to me that you have succumed to the worst kind of sin Martin - Pride! You are full of pride in your conversion to pacifism, and feel that now everyone else who hasn't seen the light that you have is a lesser person; that we live in the darkness, beneath the woodwork.
You need to take a deep breath and look to yourself sir.
You keep setting up questions that are nonsensical - what would Jesus do to the small children, would Jesus have bombed or starved... why stop there... would Jesus have raped, murdered or raped and murdered?
These are straw man questions. You are giving a choice of two bad things and them merely asking if Jesus would have done that. We don't know what He would have done, AND NEITHER DO YOU!
You might like to think you do, but you have no more insight or knowledge than anyone else. You might have concocted a third, fourth or sixty-seventh way, but it doesn't mean any of them are right.
If you are waiting for everyone on the planet to become a pacifist, martyr-in-waiting before your "fourth way" becomes reality, but the experience of life to daye shows that it will not and cannot happen. If we COULD do it ourselves, Christ would not have had to die for our sins in the first place. That he did shows that we will always be sinful, and that martyrs can be removed by killing.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
deano, your humility knows no depths, I'm exposing the absurdity of false dichotomies my dear chap.
I KNOW Jesus would do neither. And so do you. And so does EVERYONE here.
Neither would He or any of His servants assassinate Caesar.
How can you not know this?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
deano, your humility knows no depths, I'm exposing the absurdity of false dichotomies my dear chap.
I KNOW Jesus would do neither. And so do you. And so does EVERYONE here.
Neither would He or any of His servants assassinate Caesar.
How can you not know this?
Just to clarify, are you stating that a Christian MUST be a pacifist willing to undergo martyrdom to prevent wars?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Of course.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Of course.
So - and again for clarification - are you stating that anyone who has posted to disagree with you about your principle is NOT, and cannot be, a Christian?
[ 28. November 2012, 17:45: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As fine a false dichotomy as I ever did see. Well done. You've excelled yourself.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As fine a false dichotomy as I ever did see. Well done. You've excelled yourself.
No Martin, I clearly said it was for clarification. If you felt my understanding of your position was wrong why did you noty just explain it?
But I am at a loss, I must confess, as you confirm readily that a Christian must be a pacifist.
If I post to say I disagree with you that pacifism is always correct, that MUST make me a non-pacifist, surely?
And if I am a non-pacifist, by your first premise, according to you I cannot be a Christian.
I am just trying to understand here. It seems to me that it is you making some very fine distinctions here.
I suppose I'm trying to get you to confirm that anyone who does not accept pacifism as wholeheartedly as you cannot - in your opinion - be a Christian.
Can you confirm or deny that, with a reasonable description of the thinking behind it please, so that someone who lives in woodwork can understand it?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
If you're going to refer to a Wikipedia articles, at least pick a good one which is based on fact rather than opinion. Note the little gold star in the top-right corner of the page, and the absence of a neutrality dispute tag.
OK - but I still think the account given there does not dropping the first bomb let alone the second. It reads as: "ignore any overtures and get the commies to stall"
I hadn't quite realised the scale of the firebombing - and that would meet my definition of a war crime too.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I hadn't quite realised the scale of the firebombing - and that would meet my definition of a war crime too.
What is your definition of a war crime?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
deano, your humility knows no depths, I'm exposing the absurdity of false dichotomies my dear chap.
I KNOW Jesus would do neither. And so do you. And so does EVERYONE here.
Neither would He or any of His servants assassinate Caesar.
How can you not know this?
Just to clarify, are you stating that a Christian MUST be a pacifist willing to undergo martyrdom to prevent wars?
I actually think that is what 'taking up your cross' means.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
And I think it means following Justin Bieber from city to city and sitting through every last second of every concert the boy does. My interpretation is as likely as yours. Not that either of them make sense given the context but exegesis smexegesis let's just make this shit up as we go along.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
I'm just wondering who is going to tell all those soldiers, sailor and airmen who thought they were Christians and who fought in Normandy, Bastogne, Arnhem, Burma, India, Iwo Jima etc, that, sorry boys, but you aren't Christians.
Of course, I'm sure that they thought that, by serving and sacrificing, they were taking up their crosses. But if you want to tell them that they are not Christians, go ahead.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I'm just wondering who is going to tell all those soldiers, sailor and airmen who thought they were Christians and who fought in Normandy, Bastogne, Arnhem, Burma, India, Iwo Jima etc, that, sorry boys, but you aren't Christians.
Of course, I'm sure that they thought that, by serving and sacrificing, they were taking up their crosses. But if you want to tell them that they are not Christians, go ahead.
Look up CESSAC, drop them an email and don't forget to include your name and address.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I hadn't quite realised the scale of the firebombing - and that would meet my definition of a war crime too.
What is your definition of a war crime?
Intentionally killing non-combatants would qualify for starters.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I hadn't quite realised the scale of the firebombing - and that would meet my definition of a war crime too.
What is your definition of a war crime?
Intentionally killing non-combatants would qualify for starters.
Not in 1945, read on for more details...
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
If you're going to refer to a Wikipedia articles, at least pick a good one which is based on fact rather than opinion. Note the little gold star in the top-right corner of the page, and the absence of a neutrality dispute tag.
OK - but I still think the account given there does not dropping the first bomb let alone the second. It reads as: "ignore any overtures and get the commies to stall"
I hadn't quite realised the scale of the firebombing - and that would meet my definition of a war crime too.
I agree that, if ordered by David Cameron or Julia Gillard today, the incendiary bombing of Tokyo and the two atomic bomb attacks would be quite rightly considered to be war crimes. But that was not the case back then, total war (now considered a war crime under Protocol I of the Fourth Geneva Convention) was considered acceptable by virtually all nation-states participating in WWII - including the UK, see the notorious Area Bombing Directive for the best example. They are quite right to be regarded as horrible actions that should never happen again, but they were not war crimes.
These rules only came about in 1949 (Fourth Geneva Convention) and 1977 (Protocol I additions to Geneva IV) because there had been enough time for the world to look at what had happened and say "that was bad, we don't want that to happen again."
That's why I'm a supporter of the atomic bombings when it's all weighed up even though they were horrible events I hope never happen again, because they were (unfortunately) the best option according to the contemporary standards and situation of the time need to be given great weight. The memory of the pain inflicted on Hiroshima and Nagasaki also has a very important legacy - ever since then there has been a great amount of caution when it comes to nuclear weapons and we've gone almost 60 years without any subsequent use of them 'for real,' and long may that memory continue to.
A lot of people taking a USA-centric view (paying attention to the Pacific but not to Asia) might also need to be reminded that Japan was still occupying lots of territory through Asia at the time that they got hit by the "double shock" of the atomic bombs and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. The hastened surrender in those Japanese-held areas was incredibly important for allowing those brutal occupations to be ended.
[ 28. November 2012, 21:01: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I would agree UK area bombing was a war crime. (I suspect there wasn't a law against the holocaust at the time- doesn't stop it being an atrocity.)
I had a relative who dated a bomber pilot during the war. She told me that some pilots originally refused, and were basically told do it or be shot. And fair few dumped their payloads before they got to densely populated areas. But I don't how accurate that account is.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You understand just fine deano. I don't play the foundationalist game any more. Christians ran Auschwitz. Christians were in the air crews over Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Hamburg and Dresden. Christians are the greatest warmongers in 2000 years bar none. Christians hit Omaha Beach and were mown down by Christians. Just like on the Somme. At Ladysmith, Gettysburg. Waterloo. Agincourt. The Milvian Bridge. Jerusalem. Find me an exception.
And like most Christians, aren't very. Whilst being noble, brave, self-sacrificial killing in or against the name of Caesar.
All because 'real' Christians, Christian leaders were nowhere to be seen or heard.
Apart from scattered across occupied Europe of course. Conspicuous by their witness. The Greek for which is what?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And, the giant cheeseburger, the Japanese 'invasion' of the Philippines caused how many casualties compared with the American 'liberation' a generation before?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And, the giant cheeseburger, the Japanese 'invasion' of the Philippines caused how many casualties compared with the American 'liberation' a generation before?
Numbers are an irrelevance.
I make no apologies for that statement. It matters nothing how many die on which side in a particular battle, providing that the RIGHT side wins.
I personally see the allied side as the right side, not the Nazi's nor the Japanese empire.
I'm glad I understand just right about your view on Christians who died as soldiers trying to liberate others. I find it wrong, ill-reasoned and nauseating, but I understand your position.
An idea is not a solution unless it is going to solve a problem and is actually feasible to implement. Otherwise it's just an opinion. It is not feasible for everyone on the planet to become pacifist. It is not feasible for all Christians to become pacifist. Therefore your idea is not a solution, it's just an opinion.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
From the article linked to by Doublethink
quote:
In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86 Journal, pp. 508-512.)
Were the five separate surrender overtures authorized by the War Minister? If not, they would have no effect.
Only one person could override the War Minister and the army officers who supported him. That person was the emperor. It was the two atomic bombs that persuaded him to act.
The army officers were willing to die themselves and have the entire Japanese civilian population die rather than surrender.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The Army also tried to oust the Emperor and destroy the surrender recording on August 14th. Troops from the Imperial Guards Division occupied the Imperial Palace and searched for the recording in vain. They also tried to kill the Emperor but he was elsewhere.
The Army had tried to bully the Emperor once before, in the incident called 2-2-6, after its date of Feb. 26, 1936.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I would agree UK area bombing was a war crime.
You mean "would be a war crime if it happened today" or "should have been a war crime in my opinion."
quote:
I suspect there wasn't a law against the holocaust at the time- doesn't stop it being an atrocity.
You're kind of correct there, the Nuremburg trials didn't charge Nazis specifically for being part of the Holocaust. They were convicted on the basis of various existing conventions and treaties, plus the somewhat woolly "crimes against humanity".
quote:
I had a relative who dated a bomber pilot during the war. She told me that some pilots originally refused, and were basically told do it or be shot. And fair few dumped their payloads before they got to densely populated areas. But I don't how accurate that account is.
Being shot for failing to obey orders was nothing unique to Bomber Command flight crew (which I think were all volunteers), that was always a possibility for deserters regardless of whether they were volunteers or conscripts.
As for dropping bombs before the target area, this was common for a variety of reasons, such as shitty navigation (in early 1942 the RAF was only getting about 5% of bombs within 2km of the nominal target), coming under real or perceived attack, mechanical issues or fuel problems. They were all multi-crew planes, so it would have taken a few of them to agree before they could turn around if it wasn't for one of those "good" reasons to can the mission.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Numbers are an irrelevance.
I make no apologies for that statement. It matters nothing how many die on which side in a particular battle, providing that the RIGHT side wins.
This statement is smug, outrageous, juvenile, and particularly offensive. It does matter who died. May it never be you or your son, daughter, mother, brother or father. It matters when they are family. You go on to talk of Nazis and Japanese. And you write of things you know not of, ignorantly, and ill-considered.
You may be surprised to know, and I would encourage you to get to know, i.e., learn, that not all Germans were Nazis and not all were genocidal maniacs. None of my family who fought on the German side in WW2 were party members. And all of my cousins who were soldiers in the Wehrmacht were killed. That's 100%. Maybe they were drafted like my father was into the Canadian army, or maybe they volunteered like my father-in-law did. The last member of my family killed was in Oct 1945, a 19 year old, murdered by Americans in a POW camp in the USA. We think murder is a war crime, even if you think numbers don't matter. Each number is a person.
And also killed completely were 4 of 5 families of people who were my cousins. Including mothers, babies, and children. I've been to the village and seen the perfectly round craters, and have then pictures. The bombing was American carpet bombing after D-Day of the Rhineland. You're in the area that's bombed, you're either exploded or you burn. No, the children weren't Nazis, but they died anyway.
It does matter if it is your relatives who are killed. I don't have an answer about the rightness of wrongness of a cause when it is dead babies. I don't think you should either. I do know that ideas such as your's are morally bankrupt, and are anti-human, anti-Jesus. Ideas like your's are a terrible problem, a problem that's been a human problem even since Cain murdered Abel. To coin the phrase, if you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. And I'm watching dangerous people like you, and cringing when they spout their evil.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matariki
Shipmate
# 14380
|
Posted
I have just scrolled through the last six pages and its complex isn't it? Even within the narrative of WW2 being a just war there are inconsistancies. Look at Japan's occupation of European colonies in Asia, a brutal colonizing that needed to be driven back but the Dutch, British and French didn't want to free the East Indies, Malaya and Indo-China; they wanted to restore their (admittedly gentler) colonial rule. That they failed to do so for long after 1945 was partly because they were exhausted and bankrupt, but it was also because Asians were cleraly aware of this glaring inconsistancy and found it to be intolerable.
--------------------
"Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accompanied alone; therefore we are saved by love." Reinhold Niebuhr.
Posts: 298 | From: Just across the Shire from Hobbiton | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
Some thoughts after wading through six pages:
Let's poke a little at the claim that European colonialism was "just as bad". We know how well Gandhi did against the British, it took him around 40 years to destroy the British Empire. (And the world his better for it.) How well would he (a real Aryan, speaker of an Indo-Iranian language) have done against Adolf & his boys? The Nazis wouldn't even have particularly noticed who they'd just killed.
***
Margaret MacMillan has written some excellent work, but she's not impartial. Her great-grandfather was in that railway carriage. Her afterword to Paris 1919 is a plea that Versailles didn't cause WWII, and it fails to convince me.
The best date to divert the history of the 20th century would be about 1916, before WWI really stalls on the Western Front.
***
My father was a conscientious objector in WWII, as a Quaker. He did his service as an air-raid warden. I think he regretted not fighting in the war. He never quite said one way or the other.
***
I'm not convinced that WWII really fits the theory of just war. The Soviets were not at any point interested in a just war. An opportunitistic one, and then their ally betrayed them. After that, they won. In my opinion, WWII was won at Stalingrad, which really means Hitler defeated himself in 1941.
I believe Churchill remarked that if Hilter invaded Hell, he would speak well of the Devil in the Commons.
***
If one were serious about the concept of war crimes, there were plenty on our side.
***
It's hard to see how an upheaval that killed millions and involved hundreds of millions of people could ever be analyzed down to a yes/no decision on "was it just?" It happened, and we believe that the less overtly evil side won.
Similarly, in its successor, the Cold War. I can't see that "Mutual Assured Destruction" is a moral tactic - but it worked.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I would agree UK area bombing was a war crime.
You mean "would be a war crime if it happened today" or "should have been a war crime in my opinion."
quote:
I suspect there wasn't a law against the holocaust at the time- doesn't stop it being an atrocity.
I mean, would have been prosecutable as a crime under existing law if anyone had been motivated to do so.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Re the deano-Martin spat, I think that what pushed Martin's buttons was (and I accept that Martin-reading is an imprecise art, even at the best of times) his perception that it seemed like other posters were rationalising such great moral evils as the mass killing of civilians, no matter who was responsible, rather than accepting that these were things that happened in war, and may even have been "necessary", but should be seen as things for which the appropriate response is repentance, acknowleging that they are great moral evils, and determining that, by our corporate ammendment of life, they should not happen again.
What do we (as Christians) do when confronted with an unavoidable choice between two or more great moral evils? To be human is to choose, so we choose, recognising with humility that we may choose wrongly, but never lightly.
FWIW, I don't think Martin was trying to second guess, from a position of non-involvement, the rightness or wrongness of the choices made by individual Chritians, rather acknowledging that in a sin-ravaged world where wars can happen, we are all potentially faced by such choices, sinned against and sinning.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You don't understand AT ALL deano. You can't.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Re the deano-Martin spat, I think that what pushed Martin's buttons was (and I accept that Martin-reading is an imprecise art, even at the best of times) his perception that it seemed like other posters were rationalising such great moral evils as the mass killing of civilians, no matter who was responsible, rather than accepting that these were things that happened in war, and may even have been "necessary", but should be seen as things for which the appropriate response is repentance, acknowleging that they are great moral evils, and determining that, by our corporate ammendment of life, they should not happen again.
What do we (as Christians) do when confronted with an unavoidable choice between two or more great moral evils? To be human is to choose, so we choose, recognising with humility that we may choose wrongly, but never lightly.
FWIW, I don't think Martin was trying to second guess, from a position of non-involvement, the rightness or wrongness of the choices made by individual Chritians, rather acknowledging that in a sin-ravaged world where wars can happen, we are all potentially faced by such choices, sinned against and sinning.
Well I believe he was, I'm afraid. He stated, and I clarified the point with him to be sure, that anyone who fights in a war as a soldier is no longer to be called or recognised as a Christian.
But that's the only part of your post I disagree with. I cannot rationalise warfare, and I don't believe anyone can. All wars are crimes, but none of us were there and none of us will – fortunately – have to make the decisions that needed making then.
It is easy and smug to sit here seventy-odd years later and state that those who fought against the hegemony and dictatorship were criminals and not Christians, and I find it repulsive. None of us know what decisions we would have taken, or how we would have fought. It is easy to claim to be a pacifist when nobody is threatening you.
As far as numbers of deaths are concerned, my point was that in wars people die, and more than that, people are expected to die. It is factored it. It is part of doing business. That is the nature of the military and cold as it seems, the numbers of those who die is balanced against the results of the battle. It is a calculation that all soldiers were and are aware of, and officers are taught how to calculate it. But in a war, the price of victory in battles is paid in blood.
It is not pleasant and far from finding the thought easy or smug, I find it horrific! But it is part of war. What makes me sick to my stomach is the thought that those who did pay in blood are to be humiliated by having their faith stripped from them.
Of course war is immoral, and to try to capture the moral high-ground (forgive the military metaphor) by counting dead babies is not helpful nor is it necessary. In wars, especially total wars that were fought in towns and villages, in school buildings and people’s homes, children will die. Nobody likes that. Nobody! To try to argue that regimes like the Nazis or the Japanese empire should be allowed freedom to do what they like to prevent the deaths of more children is to reduce a genuine horrific tragedy down to the level of soap-opera sentimentality.
I appreciate that families are torn apart by war. Not just one family, but millions of families were torn apart by the two World Wars, and no-one who lived through it can claim any sort of special privilege over another who also lived through it, because all were damaged, on all sides. I don’t believe in pacifism. I respect it in an individual who has a faith that demands it, and is prepared to accept the consequences of it, but I have seen nothing to convince me that it can defeat the greater evils, and to actively encourage it in wars like the two World Wars is giving succour and comfort to the enemy, and should be dealt with as such.
It is my view that when war breaks out it is due to the failure of politicians, and that soldiers have to pay the price to overcome that failure. They are our last line of defence before tyranny, and I find it spiteful and ignorant in the extreme to attempt to take away their faith, which may be the one thing that enables them to actually go to war on our behalf.
Like it or not Martin and No Prophet both have the blood of the dead soldiers on their hands because they did fight for us, as do I and as do all of us, and that blood won’t wash off. I prefer to treat it with respect, not by excommunication-by-half-baked theory or bathetic moralising.
Isn’t this a dead horse yet, because it would seem to have no end in sight?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Jolly Jape - what did Jesus choose ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Jolly Jape - what did Jesus choose ?
Well, of course, he chose to die, and, ultimately, His death did destroy the power structure of the Empire, through the blood of the martyrs. What the church chose to do with that victory, the price they paid is, of course, open to debate, but at the very least it ill behoves us to judge the Bishops of the day from the perspective of 20/20 hindsight.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
As far as numbers of deaths are concerned, my point was that in wars people die, and more than that, people are expected to die. It is factored it. It is part of doing business. That is the nature of the military and cold as it seems, the numbers of those who die is balanced against the results of the battle. It is a calculation that all soldiers were and are aware of, and officers are taught how to calculate it. But in a war, the price of victory in battles is paid in blood.
This is not what you previously said, and you included casualties who were not soldiers. This is your response deano
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I make no apologies for that statement. It matters nothing how many die on which side in a particular battle, providing that the RIGHT side wins.
and deano, you wrote that in response to this by Martin PC:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And, the giant cheeseburger, the Japanese 'invasion' of the Philippines caused how many casualties compared with the American 'liberation' a generation before?
So it seems that we're seeing a shift in what you're saying. I'm glad. In that vein, this is worthy of comment:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Isn’t this a dead horse yet, because it would seem to have no end in sight?
That's is not the definition of a dead horse, that you find the discussion difficult. We are not finished the discussion even if you wish to give up.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You don't understand AT ALL deano. You can't.
I’m afraid that is a little weak. “My arguments don’t stack up, so I’ll pretend they are complex and that the doubter is not intelligent enough to comprehend them”
I have a teenager who does that… “you don’t know! You wouldn’t understand!!!”
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
And I think it means following Justin Bieber from city to city and sitting through every last second of every concert the boy does. My interpretation is as likely as yours. Not that either of them make sense given the context but exegesis smexegesis let's just make this shit up as we go along.
Not your most intelligent response.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
That is the nature of the military and cold as it seems, the numbers of those who die is balanced against the results of the battle. It is a calculation that all soldiers were and are aware of, and officers are taught how to calculate it.
That's as may be when the soldiers are volunteers. When they're conscripts the morality changes somewhat.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
the giant cheeseburger: quote:
Being shot for failing to obey orders was nothing unique to Bomber Command flight crew (which I think were all volunteers)
Maybe in the Australian air force, but not in the RAF. Not by 1945 anyway.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
That is the nature of the military and cold as it seems, the numbers of those who die is balanced against the results of the battle. It is a calculation that all soldiers were and are aware of, and officers are taught how to calculate it.
That's as may be when the soldiers are volunteers. When they're conscripts the morality changes somewhat.
Oh! Are conscripts still Christians then? you are only excommunicated if you volunteer for the armed forces?
The morality of war doesn't change on iota. It's all immoral, but you still have to determine the attrition rate for the bridge you have to take, the village, the Normandy beachhead. It doesn't matter to the officer if they are volunteers or conscripts, they are still his men, and he will still be sick to the stomach to lose any, but that is how war does its dirty, nasty, immoral transactions.
Or do you think its more moral to lose a few volunteers than conscripts? If they volunteered then they get what they deserve eh?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh! Are conscripts still Christians then? you are only excommunicated if you volunteer for the armed forces?
I said nothing about whether anyone is Christian or not.
quote:
The morality of war doesn't change on iota. It's all immoral, but you still have to determine the attrition rate for the bridge you have to take, the village, the Normandy beachhead. It doesn't matter to the officer if they are volunteers or conscripts, they are still his men, and he will still be sick to the stomach to lose any, but that is how war does its dirty, nasty, immoral transactions.
Yes, that's the problem. The moment you start counting the cost in unwilling human lives, you've become a monster. And I don't give a fuck which monster you happen to be fighting against, that's still wrong.
quote:
Or do you think its more moral to lose a few volunteers than conscripts? If they volunteered then they get what they deserve eh?
I wouldn't phrase it like that, but yes. The death of someone who freely chose to put their life on the line is more moral than the death of someone who was forced to do so against their will.
I don't believe that war is necessarily an absolute moral evil, but I do believe that conscription is.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
the giant cheeseburger: quote:
Being shot for failing to obey orders was nothing unique to Bomber Command flight crew (which I think were all volunteers)
Maybe in the Australian air force, but not in the RAF. Not by 1945 anyway.
Your editing of my post makes things confusing there. Are you saying...
- That British crews in Bomber Command were not volunteers by the end of the war (quite possible, my knowledge is mainly to do with the Royal Australian Air Force), or
- that British officers commanding Bomber Command squadrons would not have used the threat (however unrealistic) of being shot as way to jolt a potential deserter back to reality if it was a British unit, but would have if it were a Royal Australian Air Force unit, or
- both?
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No Jolly Jape, it behooves us. Their bad example does not supercede Jesus'.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
the giant cheeseburger: quote:
Being shot for failing to obey orders was nothing unique to Bomber Command flight crew (which I think were all volunteers)
Maybe in the Australian air force, but not in the RAF. Not by 1945 anyway.
Your editing of my post makes things confusing there. Are you saying...
- That British crews in Bomber Command were not volunteers by the end of the war (quite possible, my knowledge is mainly to do with the Royal Australian Air Force), or
- that British officers commanding Bomber Command squadrons would not have used the threat (however unrealistic) of being shot as way to jolt a potential deserter back to reality if it was a British unit, but would have if it were a Royal Australian Air Force unit, or
- both?
The information I have is that all RAF aircrew were volunteers, and that Bomber Command sustained the highest casualty rate of any major branch of the British armed forces. Although there were RAAF squadrons, Australians were fairly tightly integrated within RAF Bomber Command so I doubt there would be distinctions (there were Australians in The Dambusters squadron, which was initially commanded by a New Zealander).
The remarks about aircrew being threatened with being shot if they did not carry out missions might be more applicable to the US bomber forces, as the Americans bombed by day which was, until fighter escorts were available for the whole trip, was even more hazardous and demanding of collective discipline.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Deano, you clarified nothing, you ran away with the foundationalist, bipolar, false dichotomy fairies mate.
All Christians who choose to go to war - and millions have - have made a choice which has NOTHING to do with Jesus.
If you are a military man, Christian or not, then I am NOT fit to lick your boots. I'd stand you a drink any time, shake your hand in public especially if you were in uniform.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, that's the problem. The moment you start counting the cost in unwilling human lives, you've become a monster. And I don't give a fuck which monster you happen to be fighting against, that's still wrong.
I don't believe that war is necessarily an absolute moral evil, but I do believe that conscription is.
Faux-naive showboating like that is disgraceful.
By your principles, you would have allowed the Nazi's to do whatever they wanted, relying on volunteers to defeat them, as conscription would be against your moral code.
How did that work out in the Spanish Civil War?
What kind of moral code is it that, by its principles, would have allowed the Nazi's free-reign?
What conclusions could one draw about the holder of such a moral code?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
No Martin, I clearly said it was for clarification. If you felt my understanding of your position was wrong why did you noty just explain it?
Followed by...
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You understand just fine deano.
Followed by...
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Deano, you clarified nothing, you ran away with the foundationalist, bipolar, false dichotomy fairies mate.
I'm not sure it's me who is bipolar!
This has moved away from the OP and I really don't want to debate with someone who's views change minute-by-minute depending on their mood.
Bye.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
