David and squad,
David writes:
I think Ben has made some good points. We can say the Allies were acting
on the intellectual level and were therefore morally superior to the
extent that they were fighting to save democracy and protect human
rights. But generally speaking, military policy and tatics aren't
decided by human rights crusaders.
Ken writes:
While it is true that our side observed the general conventions of war
with regard to the treatment of prisoners and such like I think it is also
true that not much widespread consideration was given to moral superiority
or protecting human rights at the time. We were committed to winning the
war, we HAD to win the war, and if human rights and moral superiority had
to go by the board then so be it.
David writes:
In fact, the U.S. only entered the
war after the isolationists and fascist sympathizers were defeated at
Pearl Harbor. And the bombing of Hiroshima clearly demonstrates a lack
of concern for human rights. There's not much point in mentioning our
strongest ally, Joe Stalin.
Clark writes:
It is true that there was a noticeable pool of opinion supportive of
Hitler and especially Communism (remember we were just coming out of the
depression-Woody Guthrie and all that) but the main body of opinion was
simply isolationist. We didn't want to get involved in the war. I feel sure
that if Hitler looked to be winning that we would have eventually gotten
actively involved. The bombing of Pearl Harbor instantly changed all that.
After Pearl Harbor we were practically unanimously ready to retaliate.
Japan would have been smart to leave Pearl Harbor alone.
Your obsession with human rights would have been looked upon askance at
that time. I feel sure that if someone had had a button that they could
push and kill every Japanese in the world it would have been done.
As I have argued before, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
demonstrates a concern for human rights viewed in the light of conditions
at that time. Using the best estimates of the time it saved about 830,000
lives about half of which would have been Japanese and half American. Would
it have been more moral to continue firebombing Japanese cities and then
have to invade the Japanese mainland with all of the attendant losses on
both sides? I don't think so. We took the most moral course under the
circumstances prevailing at that time.
As for Stalin, he was a suspicious bedfellow who opened the eastern front
for his own purposes and took some of the pressure off the western front.
David writes"
Clark, I won't even try to turn the tables and use the "you had to be
there" argument in defence of my view of events. I won't ask you to
imagine what it would have been like "to be there" in Hiroshima when the
bomb went off. I won't ask you to picture your entire hometown bursting
into flames. To say "you had to be THERE" is just too cruel.
Clark writes:
I don't get the point of this paragraph at all. Are you arguing that it
would have been better to continue the firebombing and invasion track
rather than drop the bomb? Are you arguing that we should have done nothing
and let the Japanese win? Are you arguing that we should have let the
Japanese surrender under their own conditions? Are you arguing that we
should have continued the blockade until the Japanese gave up? If so then
you have no sense of the suicide attacks we would have had to undergo. I'm
puzzled.
David writes:
And Roger makes a good point. Most "things" are multi-layered. But if we
can't sort these things out, then the moral codes and consequently the
entire MOQ is rendered useless. If we can't see what values are at stake
in any given situation, then we can make no moral judgements about those
situations. That's an impossible and paralyzing state of affairs.
Clark writes:
This reflects a misunderstanding of the MoQ. If we are unable to see all
facets of any particular situation we will still be able to form a "truth"
of that situation. Each persons "truth" is peculiar to that person. All
"truths" will be nudged by Quality toward a common "truth". The MoQ
functions whether or not our "truths"are complete and accurate or not. That
is the beauty of the MoQ. It is working for us even if we have never heard
of the MoQ. Of course, it is better if we are familiar with the tenets of
the MoQ and are able to attempt to apply them consciously but even so we
will often not have a complete grasp of the issues involved. Our "truths"
will be tentative but still subject to modification by the MoQ. There
should be no "impossible or paralyzing" state within the MoQ, just a bunch
of "truths" slowly converging toward a common goal. Ken
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST