Case study in ethics

  1. if they were, would you then think it would be OK to enter the war? 2) It is inconcievable that the Soviets would not have lost more millions if the US had not entered the war. The German could have held fast in the West, and pushed into Russia with gusto. The enormous air, sea and artillary resources of the US sucked tremendous resources from the Germans, and they had to fight a very active two or more front war.

One isn’t justifying the war, one is justifying one’s role in relation to something. In the case of WW2, the war was already a war when the US entered. Were the French Underground wrong to wage a war against the German occupiers.

And notice that above, you are arguing against specific analyses of WW2. IOW it important for you to believe that the Soviets would have been OK without US intervention. But you must realize that even if you were right, in this particular instance (which I do not think you are), there will be other situations where horrible things will happen if no one intervenes. You own arguing that point entails that there are situations when it would be moral to enter a war. Otherwise you would not care about that point. It would not matter.

In the case of Hitler his mistake was taking on people who fought against him and had friends who fought against him and his military.

Actually I see people doing just fine out there who have acted with regularity immorally.

Do you not see people who have benefitted and continue to do so from their immoral choices? I mean, look at the Bush Administration. They made big bucks off their immoral wars.

Without US help, the war would have lasted much longer with more military casualties on both sides and significantly more Soviet civilian casualties. The Germans would have had more time to eliminate the Jewish population in the occupied territories and to starve the Slav civilians.

Probably the Soviets would have won in the end and liberated all of Europe.

If the ethics of US participation in WW2 is so complicated, even with hindsight and vast amounts of historical information, then how can anyone figure out the ethics of a current problem where we don’t have the benefit of hindsight? :-k

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poz6W0znOfk[/youtube]

The point I would like to make is that the time to fight Hitler was between 1925 and 1932 - when he rose to power as Chancellor of Germany. By July of 1925, after having been sentenced to 4 years for treason, and being in jail for only nine months, he published Mein Kampf.
For details see: history.com/this-day-in-his … -published

Then the world should have been aware that he was a raving psychopathic maniac who must be stopped from rising up in the ranks of any government, let alone Germany’s. By 1925 the Nazi Party was an active group which included Rudolf Hess. The world should have taken measures to make the rivals of the Nazis more attractive to the German millionaires and power elite, as well as to the mass of the German people.

Perhaps something like The Marshall Plan ought to have been bestowed on Germany with the credit going to the political parties competing with the Nazi cult.

It was wrong to wait until 1941
for my country, the USA, to wage war against Hitler, the sick man; and his party, the Nazis. …By then it was very late!

The same is true these days in re the con-artist in the white house: people had written books about his racketeering life ten years ago. We should have known tthen about the money-laundering and how he was ‘married to the mob,’ as The New Republic expose phrased it later in a 2016 edition of the magazine. “The Mob” to which they refer is the Russian mafia.

amazon.com/Dangerous-Case-D … merReviews

amazon.com/Making-Donald-Tr … merReviews

When will we ever learn?

Ethics is like a mule. It wags its tail, but it never chews right.

1- Let’s say you are correct in your analysis. That the best thing would have been to do something earlier AND that this would have worked. But democracies make errors. They can miss opportunities. They are not infallible. So there it is 1941 and they realize that they should have acted sooner, seen and taken seriously the warning signs that earlier administrations did not. Might not going to war have been the best choice at that time? 2-we really have no idea that your plan, based on hindsight, would have worked or was so obvious then. You can say, they should have done X and that would have worked and there would be no war. But there is no way to see if your speculation is correct.

More importantly, was it moral for the French and other countries to fight back against the Germans. They engaged in war against occupiers. Should England also not entered the war?

To KT and all readers:

In an earlier post I expressed admiration for the Danish Underground movement, as well as for the Underground in Sweden. So isn’t it logical that I also believe that the French Underground had the right idea.

I hold that Satyagraha - as Gandhi spoke of it - is the way to “fight a war.” This entails nonviolent direct action. And KT is correct when he wrote, informing the readers, that - in contrast with the violent alternatives - history shows that far less precious human lives are lost in the struggles waged by those committed to nonviolence. [size=90]{See the research results, the historical record, compiled by The Einstein Institute - Dr. Gene Sharp - Director.}
[/size]
See for a brief summary of the history of warfare along with an ethical proposed alternative see the book by Robert Wright: Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny - amazon.com/product-reviews/ … ewpoints=1

and see the more-recent book on the statistics of warfare, offering a positive, hopeful outlook, by Steven Pinker - amazon.com/Better-Angels-Ou … merReviews

and especially visit this site on the web: worldwithoutwar.com/
It offers practical steps an activist who cares can take toward the goal of a world without war. [size=85][Hence it it cannot accurately be described as ‘utopian.]’[/size]

…Your thoughts on these matters?

The underground movements were as violent as they possibly couldbe. They had limited resourses, but killed and maimed their enemies. Their intention was to violently remove the occupiers from their lands and they were not Ghandian in their approach. I am thinking more of the French, though the Danish movement certainly used violence. The Swedes were not occupied and I know less about them.

Thanks for the correction, Karpel.

It is still true that nonviolent direct action is the Ethical way to go. It does result in less harm over all. It even tends to have a liberating redemptive effect on the perpetrators of cruelty, torture, and abuse. Let’s aim for the goals of freedom, love and peace, while practicing them. Peace is the road as well as the destination.

If we are going to be ethical, our means need to be compatible with our ends. For the proof of this claim, see the selections in the signature below. Also don’t miss this one: myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 … ncepts.pdf

Comments? Questions? Suggestions?

Certainly if everyone does it. But how do we test your assertion in a world where not everyone will abstain from violence?

So then, it seems the French underground and the Danish were not ethical since they use violence. They should have resisted the Nazis openly, like MLK and Ghandi, without violence.

Poland was invaded and conquered in 1939.

Are you (thinkdr) saying that the correct ethical action was for Britain, France and other countries not to declare war on Germany in response?

What should they have done?

I’m inclined to believe that’s an exaggeration for obvious reasons. To claim Hitler planned to conquer the world is at best speculation and most likely part of a smear campaign. This “Lebensraum” is probably just a desire to rebuild Germany. How can you have a superior society if there aren’t inferior ones? We can’t be rich unless there is someone to be richer than.

Fwd to 1:40 and listen 2 min.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OBFcrm3nUA[/youtube]

I’m interested in learning.

I could add Nietzsche’s “Be careful when fighting monsters that you do not become a monster.” I forgot that one.

Well, a greed war is less-bad than a righteous war.

I agree.

That’s why I say no one has defended my freedom since the 1700s. Every other war has been a righteous war (except maybe the confederate side defending its decisions to leave).

So you’re basically going to ignore what Hitler said in public speeches, in private conversations and what he wrote in his book. You’re going to ignore the actions of Germany … the invasions of Poland and the Soviet Union. And also the German policy towards the populations of occupied Poland and the Soviet Union.

#-o

Yes, attacking Russia in the winter was stupid lol

Another big blunder in a show of hubris was Hitler sending Rommel off to Africa because he wouldn’t shut up about the allies NOT coming at Calais. And when they showed up at Normandy, nobody had the balls to wake Hitler up to get the order to send the Panzers, so by the time all the divisions were diverted from Calais to Normandy, the allies already had a foothold! Hitler really was so stupid to believe the allies would take the shortest and most obvious crossing lol. Rommel (I think) was smart enough to know Calais was the ONE place the allies would not cross, for sure! I used to watch a lot of History channel in the 90s when they actually talked about history.

Some folks believe Hitler was a genius, but I don’t see it.

.

No I won’t ignore it. Show it to me. What you posted before was a wiki article describing Lebensraum.

According to the maps I posted, those places were part of the German empire and they wanted the territory back. I haven’t seen evidence that he intended to conquer other places like china, us, canada, mexico, etc.

That Lebenstraum article has 120 references. Follow them if you are interested. For example, #38 is “Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume Two – The National Socialist Movement, Chapter XIV: Eastern Orientation or Eastern Policy”

which you can easily google and get the full text:

mondopolitico.com/library/me … /v2c14.htm

Oh is that what ethically matters?

So logically, Britain can claim parts of France. Italy can claim most of Europe. Britain, Spain, Portugal and France can carve up the USA.

There were agreements put in place between Britain and France and Czechoslovakia and Poland which were designed to discourage German aggression and war.

They didn’t work when Germany occupied Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939. And they didn’t prevent Germany from invading Poland in 1939.

That placed Britain and France at a fork in the road in September 1939. Which path to take?