BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2

Subject: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 04:11 AM

The posting on Moral Dilemma, though meant initially as a joke (though not taken that way by all) brought me to pose a real thought to anyone who cares to run the gauntlet on it.
It's based also on my reading recently a book entitled "What If?" which takes several historical situations and theorizes on alternate endings, based on the change of one fact, such as the death of a principle player in a battle, or as head of a government.

Cutting to the chase here- how much responsibility can be laid at the feet of one individual?

This is a good time to look at this question. There are some obvious people to examine-Hitler perhaps on one end of the spectrum, along with Kenghis Kahn, Napoleon, Julius Caesar,...down to Saddam, Bin Laden, etc...over to religious leaders (semi fictional or not),Jesus, Muhammed, Mahatma Gandi,...to political leaders of our century...pick the ones you think were the greatest driving force.

If these men (and that in itself is an important issue-the far far greater amount of people will be deemed to be men on anyone's list) had not led...would the synchroncity and social/political structure of the times-led to much the same results? Would the thoughts carried into action by one man be enough to change everything?

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 04:30 AM

I've recently been reading a book on building the Panama Canal. Before the Americans got involved (simplifying greatly!) there was an attempt to persuade Russia to buy the French partially-built canal. The book contains the wonderful line:

"What the consequences might have been had the Russian scheme gone any further is interesting to speculate on."

Yes ... the Panama Canal under Russian control during the Cold War, for instance. 'Interesting' is certainly the word I would use.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 06:29 AM

In 1927 the Kuomintang, lead by Chiang Kai Shek massacred over 20,000 members of the early Communist Party of China in Shanghai. Mao escaped.

Would China be the same today if he had been one of those killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Buffy the Hamster slayer
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 06:42 AM

What if................ Hamsters were 10foot tall?

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 07:08 AM

There is a serious aspect to this question, Buffy. Yes, it is speculation about things that didn't happen and so at one level is a waste of time. But there is also a fundamental impact on how one looks at history: is it the traditional 'kings and queens' view, in which individual's decide what happens, or it it the 'great forces' view, in which individuals actually have very little influence and can merely make fine adjustments to the final outcome. The way you regard history has fundamental influences on the way you perceive life in general. As it is put in '1984' - (without looking up the exact quote) - he who controls the past controls the present. He who controls the present controls the future. The whole issue of 'social history' was the cause of great and furious debates throughout the latter part of the last century.

My own view is that neither approach is complete. I think that a better model is one of several points of equilibrium. Take my Panama example. There are clearly at least two possible outcomes: the one that actually occurred and the Soviet-owned one, and one relevant factor was how decisive individuals were. On the other hand, I think something very like the first world war would have occurred anyway even if Sarajevo hadn't happened.


... and if hamsters were 10 foot tall, killing them would be a lot more dangerous!

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 09:11 AM

I don't know, but I imagine that without Osama bin Laden's leadership, 9-11 would never have materialized. Even with other wannabe leaders of the jihad coming to the fore it seems to me it would have been dramatically different.

The overarching collision of cultures might well have happened in some other way, though.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 09:32 AM

When considering the whatifs, consider those in the background. What if Hitler had never read certain books on eugenics? What if Thomas Jefferson hadn't read folks like Rosseau and Voltaire? What if Genghis Khan had co-reigned with his brother instead of killing him? If Simon Peter had taken to heart the injuction "do not call unclean what I have cleansed" and allowed Mary of Magdala equality in the early Christian church? If Cromwell had said, "Look, Henry, keep your codpiece tied, the Boleyn wench ain't worth it"? Suppose Cardinal Mazarin had...well, you get the idea.

Often times it's those who have influenced the "major players" who caused the history. The others were tools, so to speak.

Then again, when the time is ripe it will happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 10:07 AM

The "Soviet Panama" thing just doesn't work. If there had been a Russian deal back in 1890 or so, it would either have been the Imperial,Eussian Government, or some Russian company - there is no possibility that the Americans would have allowed ownership to pass to the new Soviet Government many years later.

On the other hand, if Russia had never sold Alaska to the States, it's interesting to speculate on how things would have worked out. I suspect that there'd a Tsar today in Anchorage, perhaps with some kind of confederal link with Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,MC Fat
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 10:16 AM

In the early days of the USA I've been told there was a vote on what should be the official language and German lost out to English. If German had become the official language then the First and Second World Wars could have had an interesting scenario

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: DMcG
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 10:31 AM

I sort-of agree, McGrath. Had the Russians got control of the canal around 1890, the US would certainly have taken steps to ensure the Soviets lost control eventually. When that would be, and what those steps would be, is part of the speculation. I could imagine it staying in Soviet hands up to the end of the second world war in some scenarios, especially if whoever was nominally in charge abided by the international agreement to allow shipping of every nationality and purpose to use it. I can't really see the US letting it stay in Soviet hands once the Cold War got fully underway. Of course, the Soviets would not be willing to relinquish control easily...

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Question
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 10:39 AM

If hamsters were 10 feet tall we'd look up to them. This would also make lots more money for producers of hamster wheels and consequently keep more people in jobs. Question is how do we make them bigger (the hamsters not the wheels) ?

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 11:10 AM

GUEST,MC Fat,

Beat me to it, I think it was a vote in the House of Representatives sometime between 1910 and 1912. English remained the official language by a surprisingly narrow margin.

The Alaskan thing, relates to an extension of the Monroe Doctine of 1823, the Government of the US at that time was worried about European encroachment with regard to the various wars of independence in South America.

In Europe the French, Spanish, Prussians and Russians were all for involvement to prevent the loss of those colonies, the British and the Americans were against such intervention. The British for reasons of trade, the Americans for reasons of intervention and a potential presence that could prove troublesome in the future.

Should the European league set this ball rolling it could have meant that Russia could extend its influence down the western coast of Canada towards California. During and after the Crimean War the Russians were worried that Alaska could fall into the hands of the British. Negotiations between The US and Russia with regard to the purchase of Alaska had begun before the American Civil War, but the war suspended the talks, they were resumed after the war and the US purchased Alaska in 1867 for $7 million.

Bernard Cornwell, in one of his Sharpe series of books, mentioned a very interesting "What If" relating to the time of the wars of independence in South America. It apparently centres round a plan by characters like Higgins, Lynch and Cochrane to rescue Napoleon from St.Helena on an American ship, and transport him to Chile to mastermind the campaign against the Spanish. Unfortunately Bonaparte died two weeks before the ship arrived so the scheme came to nothing. Not withstanding that Napoleon was way passed his best by then, it does make an interesting "What if" - could have resulted in a United States of South America?

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 12:07 PM

I find the timing of this question amazing. I have just finished a serious study on the life of Teddy Roosevelt. His influence on many things in the world and America was astounding. For example, it's quite possible, in my opinion, that he was responsible for the Spanish American war. When he was Assistant Director of the Navy, he started the Navy buildup that culminated in the sinking of the Maine in Havana harbor. He then strongly urged President McKinley to declare war. After the President was forced into the war, Roosevelt then resigned from his government job and enlisted in the Army. This is turn led to his forming his own small Army, the Roughriders, and the rest is history, as they say.

I also asked myself this question, "What if I hadn't met and married my first wife?" (I've had so many wives that I have to number them). The answer to that questions is ... then I wouldn't have all these wonderful children I have. While this example is not earthshaking in the worldwide scheme of things, it sure has impacted me! CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 12:29 PM

To each 'is own what if
For specuation's a gift
I wonder with pride
Just what is inside
But we're presently wrapt in a tiff
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 12:30 PM

Ten foot tall hamsters is an almost irrestibly appealing idea. There'd be some great horror films about killer hamsters coming out of Hollywood.

I think if Jesus had not come on the scene when he did it would have made absolutely enormous differences in human history. I would say the same of Julius Caesar.

And if Stonewall Jackson had not died after Chancellorsville, the South might just have won its independence as a separate nation. If so, there would probably have been another war between the USA and the CSA at some point.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 02:03 PM

What if another of the several million sperms of my father had won the race back in that night now more than fifty years ago? Would I still be me?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freightdawg
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 02:26 PM

One of my professors pointed out that with virtually any significant "leader," there had to be an equivalent receptive audience. That is to say that without the egomaniacle Adolf Hitler there would have been no Nazi party, etc, etc, but without the social and political circumstances of post WW1 Germany (and Europe in general), there could have been no Adolf Hitler. The same could be said of Ghandi, though clearly in a radically different way. There do seem to be leaders who break out more clearly from their surroundings (Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King come to mind most readily), but move them 50 years forward or back and I wonder if they would have had the same kind of significant influence. Perhaps the most obvious overstatement is that we are all prisoners of our own time of history, but within every generation there are true visionaries (some good, some evil) that manage to seize the moment and are able to marshall the existing forces to achieve their goals. The blessing of hindsight hopefully will allow us to support the Lincolns, the Kings, and the Ghandis, while overcoming the Hitlers, the Bin Ladens, and the Husseins. Regardless of color or political leaning, good is still good, and evil is still evil.

Freightdawg.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 03:41 PM

Ellen ... I HATE threads like this. You're making me THINK! Stop it! Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 04:09 PM

As I recall, the basic burden of Tolstoy's War and Peace is that no, the individuals don't make the history, that the tide of history is what sweeps individuals along. Tolstoy graciously tells a little bit of the story, and then, "A word from our sponsor", so to speak, and you get a lecture on history. "And now, back to our story"--until, just a little way along, you get another lecture on--what?--the nature of history.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 04:33 PM

I think freightdawg is on the right track. I think the times bring forth the man, as they say.

Certainly true in science. Calculus was invented simultaneously by Newton and - whatsisname - Descartes? Senior moment here. Anyway, there are always a number of people researching the same subjects. As Charles Fort put it, we steam-engine when it's steam-engine time.

Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Roosevelt, Mao, Franco and Churchill all showed up at the same time, a time that appears to have been right for powerful leaders.

The founders of the great religions also showed up relatively close together too, though not so neatly as the political leaders.

I feel like there must be some real road forks in history, but it wouldn't have helped much in the long run to have smothered Hitler in infancy.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 05:38 PM

I'd distinguish between the idea on the one hand that removing particular individuals from history could be expected to make a great difference, and the idea on the other hand that preventing certain key events could have resulted in a different shape to history.

I'd guess that if Hitler had died in infancy, there'd have been some other Hitler figure. It seems to me that the madness didn't have its source in the one man, but in the people around and below him. They'd have found someone else, I'm sure.

On the other hand the importance of the assassinations in Sarajevo were not that the particular individuals concerned were removed from history, but rather because the event sparked off something which might not have otherwise happened.

It's true enough that the whole international situation was like a bomb ready to be detonated, and it's possible to argue that something would have happened. But then the same could be said of the Cold War period, and it felt like that too - but miraculously we got through it without the bomb being detonated.

It seems to me that September 11 might fall into both categories. I'm sure that if there hadn't been a Bin Laden his place would have been filled by someone else. On the other hand if the on the face of it extraordinarily improbable events of September 11th hadn't happened, I don't think it's necessary to assume that something equivalent would have taken place.

(Of course the question arises whether Bin Laden as an individual necessarily had much to do with the planning of that, rather than having a sort of cheer leader, morale booster role, which to me seems much more probable.)

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Helen
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 05:56 PM

Ellenpoly,

Could you tell me who wrote the "What If" book please. I am teaching a high-school equivalent English class at an adult vocational college and the scenarios in that book could be just what I am looking for to build some thinking, analysis and writing exercises around.

My initial thoughts on this topic:

When I was mercilessly bullied by a former boss, in front of 40 or so other people for 14 months, only two people reached out an emotional lifeline to me. Both were new to the section, both reached out as soon as they realised that I was in trouble. 38 or so other people put their heads down and deliberately ignored my situation in the earnest hope that they would not call attention to themselves, and thereby making themselves another target for the bully.

The "innocent bystander" mentality is a very scary one in situations like these, and this is the part about Hitler's influence on the German society that I find fascinating. The insidious, manipulative nature of Hitler's communications and actions. The way that most people choose to believe the best and not the worst of other people's (i.e. Hitler's, the government's, etc) intentions, while other people are all too ready to believe nasty things about other people because it gives them something to whinge, complain, & gossip about. And how this escalated to such an extent in such a relatively short time.

And reading this thread, and what freightdawg said "....but move them 50 years forward or back and I wonder if they would have had the same kind of significant influence" - how much does modern communication technology influence these events. If Hitler was born a century earlier without communications and transport technology, how much influence would he have had. Could he have mobilised a whole society the way that he did.   Could he have just gotten away with it all within his own country and be just a name carried down in history, feared and/or revered but a story not really completely unravelled. Like Ghengis Khan.

Helen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 06:44 PM

I'm finding this to be a fascinating thread. Something that "Helen" just posted above gave me this thought: Over the years, I have run into several people that have seemed to have incredible power over others. I'm very pleased to say that a couple of these people have become my friends, but most have not. These "other ones" I chose to avoid as much as possible. In some cases, avoiding them was quite difficult as they and I were forced into a relationship because of employment or family relations.

I'll describe one man I'll just name "John Doe." He was a force and a power. He had/has a manner about him that forced you to notice him. Ninety nine out of one hundred people would go to almost any extreme to avoid him. Yet that one person in a hundred completly fell under his influence and became his disciple. From the first day I met this man, I knew he was a person capable of great harm. And for the seven years I knew him, great harm indeed happened.

I could take "John Doe" and place him in America one hundred years ago, and I would know that he would cause great harm. I am also comfortable in saying that if he had access to the tools we have today, he would be even more deadly.

Helen, I have another book suggestion for you and your class. Check out "Van Loon's Lives," by Hendrik Willem van Loon. You might some some meaty writing assignments there. CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Joe_F
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 07:09 PM

Clint: Leibniz.

DaveO: I was actually more interested in the lectures in _War and Peace_ than in the story. Since I read it in highschool, the notion that nobody is in control has been, not an article of faith for me, but what statisticians call a null hypothesis. You think this happened because of one person's will? What's the evidence?

I do *not* follow Tolstoy in concluding that what is no man's will, but happens, must be God's.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 07:14 PM

That all depends on what your definition of "God" is...

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Helen
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 07:42 PM

Thanks for the book suggestion, Bob. I'll check it out.

Helen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Amergin
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 08:37 PM

there is a game called command and conquer: red aleert...it is a real time strategy game...basically the premise is that Einstein some how goes back in time and assassinated Hitler when Hitler is still in school...and then the Holocaust never occurred...but what does happen is that Stalin sends the Red Army out all across Europe, conquering nations left and right.

there is also a series of Alternate History books by Harry Turtledove...it starts out in the middle of the Civil War...where a mesenger is carrying battle plans drawn out by General Lee hidden in a cigar...well the mesenger drops it...and some one points it out to him that he dropped it (in reality the cigars were lost and found by the Union Army) and so the CSA wins...and they USA and the CSA fight again 20-30 years later and the CSA wins again....then the Great WAr comes...and trenches are dug all along the the country...the USA allies itself with the Kaiser...the CSA with France and England...this time the CSA, France and England lose the war...and the USA takes huge chunks of Canada...and parts of the CSA as well...the CSA slowly recovers things start looking good...until 1929...the start of the Great Depression...then the CSA starts giving way to the rise of fascism...and Socialists are in the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 08:48 PM

JEEZE! The things I learn on mudcat. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 11 Feb 04 - 11:37 PM

Thanks, Joe

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: LadyJean
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 12:29 AM

What if Hitler hadn't devoted a large part of his country's resources to eradicating 10 million people he disapproved of? What if it had all been devoted to conquest?


My mother's older brother Bill died because his doctor kept him in bed for 3 days after an appendectomy, and he developed an embolism. My mother was an attractive young woman. But she didn't marry until she was 35. My dad bore an uncanny resemblance to Bill.

Some years ago, I broke my arm, badly enough to require surgery. I spent the morning after the surgery lying in my hospital bed thinking that I did not want to get out of bed. Knowing that I would have to get out of bed. And wondering if mother would have married dad if Uncle Bill had lived.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 04:08 AM

cWell! Some fascinating thoughts abound and now I'm glad I thought to start this thread.
Helen-The "What If" book I suggest you look at is; "What If? 2: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been
by Robert Cowley (Editor)".
The first one was just about Military scenarios, but the second went futher afield, and I found more interesting.
There is another book I would suggest (Thanks for the "Van Loon" Bob, as you know I am passionate about that book) is called "Einstein's Dreams" by Alan Lightman.

Back to the thread...some of what you said hit the mark a bit more than others for me. I think what I was trying to muse upon was-which comes first-the power base or the figure-head? I realized while reading your comments that it really depends as much on the time in history these people emerge as anything else. In the past, because of the way power was held more singularly, either in the hands of a monarch, or a warlord, or tzar- their power was the first and last word. There were no ruling bodies to answer to ( even Julius had to answer to the senate) and therefore an individual's influence was "purer" if you like. Once there is either a ruling elite, or some kind of cadre, be it military, financial, or religious-then the power is dispursed amonst them, and the ruler becomes more the figure-head.
I brought this up because the "kant" today, especially by the Bush League (and yes, Bush is such an obvious figure head for a ruling elite) is a constant effort to put one face to a greater problem, or ideal. "Saddam is a madman" is a perfect example of the kind of rhetoric attempting to lead the populice to focus on one person being the embodiment of evil.
More on this soon...my laptop is about to die on me!!!....Ellen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 05:22 AM

Back again (and with spell check this time, sorry)…I didn't mean to start a speculation on alternative history (the term is "uchronia"), though there is a whole writing genre based on the idea.
I'm rather hoping to pursue the line of thought about the power of personality as a prime influence. Deckman mentioned knowing a man who he felt had such a negatively intense emanation of power (his "aura" if you will), that he felt repelled, but also fascinated by this individual.
Is it possible that we, as a species, still need to find and follow the "alpha male" as much from a need to believe that strength equals security, even over a more cerebral desire to stand and take responsibility for ones' own moral choices?
Did the times demand a Christ figure 2 millennia ago? Does it now demand an embodiment of evil?
Are we always going to be ruled by emotion over intellect, and will only the Icons change?

(PS-Maybe the next great Icon will be BE a 10 foot hamster!)
(PPS- And -Why did America drop not one, but TWO atomic bombs? I am referring to the emotion over intellect theme.)

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,CrazyEddie
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 06:33 AM

McGrath of Harlow said "I'd guess that if Hitler had died in infancy, there'd have been some other Hitler figure. It seems to me that the madness didn't have its source in the one man, but in the people around and below him. They'd have found someone else, I'm sure.

I tend to agree that the scene was set for "one strong man" but the "not hitler" would have been different.
What if he embraced communism, or extreme capitalism, rather than "National Socialism".
What if he was obsessed with religion rather than race?

Things might have been very different

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 09:46 AM

I suspect that, in any other context from the particular one he found, where he was taken seriously, Hitler would have been an eccentric bore - "There comes old Adolf again" they'd say in the pub when he started ranting on about some bee in his bonnet.

But, unless those ideas about quantum splitting multiple universes are true, and they found some way of observing them, there's no possible way in which anyone can ever find out what the truth is about these things. "What's the evidence?" asked Joe F - and it seems to me that, by definition, there can be no evidence either way.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 02:25 PM

McKinley Kantor wrote a book, oh, back around 1962, entitled "If The South Had Won The Civil War." It's still a good read.

I've always wondered what would have happened if Hitler hadn't turned Guderian's panzers south for the oil fields and had let them take Moscow instead. Or if he'd let the German 6th Army retreat at Stalingrad.

Probably nothing much, other than prolonging the war a while longer. Stalin was set to bolt from Moscow and run to the Urals, for instance. But what would have been the longer-term impacts?

Or suppose that Japan had been truly serious about taking the Aleutians and Alaska?

Or Quebec seperates from Canada and the US, to preserve the strategic St. Lawrence Seaway, allies with Canada and invades Quebec? Or Quebec seperates the the Maritimes sue for Statehood since they are now seperated from the rest of Canada?

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freightdawg
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 03:11 PM

Ellenpoly,

I must admit a certain confusion over your question. In my opinion strength does equal security - but I am not sure about what you mean by some "alpha male" mentality. I think I understand how the pack system works among wolves, but humans are not wolves and so I lose the analogy pretty quick. Among humans strength can be intellectual as well as physical. And I really am at a loss to see the distinction between viewing strength as security vs. the "cerebral" desire to stand up and take responsibility for one's moral choices. To me, admiting personal responsibility requires a huge amount of strength, as well as emotional security, which is why we see so little of it in today's culture.

Your question about the two atomic bombs reveals a presupposition on your part - that the decision to drop one, let alone two, bombs was based on emotion and not intellect. Yet, to make such a claim is to be guilty of the most egregious of historical errors - that of reading one's own social milieu back into the lives and actions of previous generations. Yes, the results of the two bombs was ghastly. But we will never know the untold suffering that was avoided due to the fact that a frontal assault on Japan never had to occur. Just look at the casualty lists from the assault on Iwo Jima, both from Japanese and American losses. And that was one small little island many miles from the homeland. Pres. Truman had an almost unfathomable decision to make. With either decision thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people would die. He chose to spare the lives of his sailors and soldiers and marines, the ones who would have died if he chose not to drop the bombs. I see that as an intellectual decision of a commander in chief who was elected to preserve and defend the constitution of the United States. So you see emotion, I see a studied and calculated decision.

I also am curious of your description of "Saddam as madman" being rhetoric. Have you seen any pictures of what Saddam did to the Kurdish people? Have you not seen or heard accounts of what he did to his enemies - even his own son-in-laws? I don't have to be told by Pres. Bush that Saddam or Osama Bin Laden are madmen. Color photographs and two holes where huge skyscrapers once stood pretty much convinced me. Evil is embodied in various forms, sometimes it is in mass hysteria, sometimes it is in the rantings of a madman like a Hitler, Hussein or Bin Laden.

As I said to start off with, I am confused as to the drift of your question. Maybe some more specifics could enlighten me as to what your conclusion is, or maybe what you think would be a good alternative. As often as not, I have discovered that I am in agreement with the overall gist of an argument, although I may disagree on some minor detail or two.

Thanks for the post,

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 11:18 PM

Good thread-

I think that if Hitler hadn't been born there'd have been an equivalent strongman, as CrazyEddie & McGrath say. I think he'd have been anti-Communist & anti-Jew because that was the mass feeling, and though a lot of details would have been different, different people would have lived and died, we'd have had ww2 all right.

But if Lady Jean's Uncle Bill had lived, it could have made a great difference in her life, even if her mother had married the same man. And if she'd married a different man, Lady Jean might be Lord Jim.

You can be pretty sure where the water in a river will go, but can't predict the path of an individual molecule. You can flip a carload of pennies & be sure almost exactly half will be tails, but you can't tell what any one coin will do.
____

About the "alpha male" idea: back in the 60's-70's what I believe were called "encounter groups" were popular. People would get together for a weekend or so and basically spill their guts to each other, and this was supposed to help them psychologicallyand/or spiritually. It helped some, but a few flipped out. I read an article that said the groups with the most charismatic leaders had the most psychotic breaks, and the only groups that had no breaks were those where people followed a tape recorder.

I wish I still had the article. I'd like to know how they measured charisma.

I think we need to outgrow the need for powerful, decisive leaders. Powerful people want power for themselves and anything the followers get is a byproduct.

What Lord Acton said.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 11:40 PM

I am not so sure; considering a major personality removed from the mix implies a host of subordinate changes in timing, in the fates of hundreds or thousands of persons, and millions of ideas and thousands of millions of communications, great and small.. For example, perhaps Germany might have found that it turned for economic resurrection to an influential Jewish leader, thus obviating the whole major racial thrust of National Socialism. While you can often point to the results of an action it is almost imp[ossible with anyu clarity to point to the results of erasing an action. It shifts too many things by indeterminate amounts.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Feb 04 - 11:40 PM

I've said any number of times, Freightdawg, that a "frontal assault on Japan" would never have been necessary anyway...regardless of whether there had never even been an atomic bomb! But that doesn't seem to occur to people anxious to justify what already happened. Japan was in such a sorry and miserable postion that they would have had a change of government and sued for peace within probably less than a year...probably less than six months...with NO invasion whatsoever! Just a continued blockade, accompanied by the inevitable Russian push into Manchuria. The loss of American lives? Absolutely negligible. It was the entry of Russia into the conflict that really floored the Japanese, even more than the atomic bombs did. They were by that point utterly helpless to do any serious harm to either the Americans or the Russians and would definitely have gone for peace at just about any price within quite a short time (I'd give it 2 to 3 months at the most, in fact).

All that was needed in Washington was a little patience.

Those bombs were not needed to defeat Japan. They were needed (presumably...) to scare the Soviets and demonstrate American striking power. Think about it.

Here's another one to think about: Stalin had shown no interest in the bomb whatsoever, despite a hint to him at Yalta that the USA had a "special weapon". He seems to have not taken that hint seriously...he may have thought it was another rocket with a conventional warhead, like the Germans had used on England. At any rate, he wasn't impressed...UNTIL Hiroshima and Nagasaki! Then he was so impressed that it started an arms race that consumed Russia and America's attention for the next 45 or more years, and brought the world to the edge of destruction once or twice (that we know about).

On the other hand...devil's advocate...I think there would definitely have been a shooting war between the Warsaw Pact and the West in the 50's without the Bomb...and it would have killed tens or hundreds of millions. So should we be grateful for the Bomb? Maybe.

It still doesn't justify incinerating 2 cities full of oriental people in order to forestall an invasion that never needed to be launched anyway.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 02:04 AM

I've been told pre-nazi Germany was pretty anti-semitic. I doubt if a Jew could have been elected national leader. I doubt if a Jew could have been elected national leader in the US then. It was surprising to many people some years later that an Irish Catholic could get elected president.

And I saw a tv interview wirh an ex-Nazi army oficer in Spain; he said Hitler was a bad man, but he was necessary to save the country from Communism.

Isn't there a line about "I must see which way my followers are going so I can get in front and lead them?"

Which seems to contradict my idea that strong leaders lead for their own advantage, but it doesn't really. To ride a bicycle you don't just get on and steer; you have to adapt to the way the bicycle wants to move to get to where you want to go. As we knoww lot of politicians have used fears and feelings that don't really matter to them to gain power to get the things that do matter to them -- which is sometimes just the power itself.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 11:34 AM

LH:

For one thing, the conditions in Japan were greatly divided and a lot of poweer was still resident with the militants; the Emperor's desire for peace was not allowed to be communicated, if I understand the history aright. For another thing, it is very easy to use a rear-view mirror to define what others should have done. I would not have wanted to be in Truman's shoes. Don't forget that it was not just that the Japanese were fighting a war against us; they were fighting a very dirty war.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 11:34 AM

LH, I hate to ask this question, but I'm going to do so.

Did the US and its allies know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the situation in Japan was so bad that a blockade would bring about surrender? Unconditional surrender, as was demanded? Or is your thinking based on 20/20 hindsight?

Another point to be raised, and one which is definitely ethical and possibly moral, is whether or not it was more humane to incinerate several thousands and destroy two cities or literally starve thousand upon thousands to death by a blockade and continued air attacks. Remember that more people died in Tokyo and Dresden from firestorms than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined -- and the cities were just as devastated. It goes back to the questions of the greatest good for the greatest number and whether, if there must be a war, it isn't better to end it as quickly as possible (e.g., Hiroshima and Nagasaki) or kill thousands and thousands (e.g. Dresden, Tokyo, the Western Front, and lots more) while bankrupting countries in more than financial ways.

I'm not going to try to answer what better minds than I have wrestled with.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 11:44 AM

For what it's worth, I am really enjoying the postings to this thread.You're all causing me to shake some of the cobwebs from my brain. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 01:14 PM

Those are useful points, Amos & Rapaire. Yes, I am speaking with the benefit of hindsight. Truman probably did what he thought was best, given his understanding of the situation. There were strong voices among the atomic scientists both for and against using the bomb, and I tend to sympathize with those who argued against doing so.

The firebombing of Tokyo with conventional bombs killed more people than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Still, there is a certain horrific aspect to the use of atomic weapons that places them somehow in a different psychological category altogether.

It's the unspoken assumptions that lie behind people's thinking that trouble me, such as...

1. the notion that a massive invasion of Japan was actually necessary...I doubt that it ever crossed the minds of American commanders that it wasn't, and that was because they couldn't think "outside the box" of their usual assumptions. They were repeating a familiar past.

2. the notion that unconditional surrender is EVER necessary to finish a war!!!!!! It isn't...unless Adolf Hitler happens to be your opponent. Surrenders can always be arranged...with certain conditions...when things reach a certain point of weakness for the losing side. Unconditional surrender seems to have been a notion invented by Ulysses S. Grant in the American Civil War. It's a notion that stinks, and smacks of extraordinary hubris. I say that while adding that I have a good opinion of Grant in a general sense. He was a fine general. When it did come down to Lee's surrender at Appomatox, Grant treated the defeated Confederate forces with honour and respect...and they DID arrange for certain conditions. The southern troops, for example, were allowed to return home and keep their horses, which they needed to start farming again, etc...

3. Behind these sort of sweeping grand assumptions such as "we must launch a full-scale invasion next or drop the bomb" and "we must demand unconditional surrender" lie certain attitudes which aren't too healthy. Hubris, hatred, the certainty of racial/cultural/moral superiority, the certainty of the enemy's inherent unworthiness and evil.

I'm not saying the Japanese would have behaved any better...they certainly would not have. What I am saying is that that doesn't make any difference to my concern over the moral issues involved. A war crime is still a war crime, even when the "good guys" commit it in the name of freedom or some other wonderful notion.

I am against war crimes being whitewashed by the victors, when it might be more honest to just admit that EVERYONE committed some war crimes, be glad it's finally over...and get on with making a better future for everyone instead of indulging in rituals of revenge upon the fallen enemy.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Rapparee
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 01:27 PM

Ethical and moral questions abound when you think about war.

First of all, when is a war necessary? Or to phrase it a little differently, is there ever a Just War?

Secondly, if war is necessary, is it better to respond with great force and end it quickly or drag it out hoping the other side will give up? In short, Hiroshima or the Western Front?

Thirdly, is a pre-emptive strike (e.g., Israel in 1967) ever justified?

Fourthly, can the Utilitarian concept of "the greatest good for the greatest number" be used to justify actions in wartime?

I'm not going to try to deal with these -- better minds than mine have rassled with 'em. I know my personal answers (42, perhaps, maybe and yo' momma), but they should continue to be asked as long as humanity wants to be inhumane.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Helen
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 06:30 PM

Ellenpoly,

Thanks for the info on the books.

You said, "Is it possible that we, as a species, still need to find and follow the "alpha male" as much from a need to believe that strength equals security, even over a more cerebral desire to stand and take responsibility for ones' own moral choices?"

I was telling a couple of my friends recently about my own experience of being bullied, and of the "innocent bystander" mentality of most of my work "colleagues" (most of them didn't act like colleagues to me). I would consider both of the friends I was talking to as very strong, morally and ethically, but when I told them about how I tried to redress the balance a little by putting my job and my reputation on the line and going to the top of the organisation to tell them what was happening, one of my friends said in amazement, "I could never have done that!"

So even strong personalities, with strong moral and ethical beliefs find it difficult "to stand and take responsibility for ones' own moral choices". How much more difficult is it then for other people who perhaps waver with the tide of fellow feeling at least some of the time when it comes to making choices and taking actions.

In Oz, a few years ago, a politician called Pauline Hanson appeared who was stirring up the general public about non-Anglo people in our multicultural society. She seemed to strike a chord with a lot of the whingeing, low locus of control element of our society. (Low locus of control - meaning that these people tend to place blame on others for their own misfortunes, so lack of employment could be blamed on having too many immigrants in the country "taking our jobs". The type of people who listen to talk-back radio and like nothing better than to have something to complain about and someone to blame.)

It was a major surprise to many people, though, that it was not just this part of the public which was supporting her. Many people from all levels of society were supporting her policies very passionately.

If there hadn't been a power struggle within their own political party, and if they had not been so politically unaware of how to get things done in the political system, then we could very well have had a significant number of politicians ruling our country and some of our states.

Hanson's motivation was not so much for taking power herself, I think, as for disseminating her beliefs, and she felt supported in doing this by the large number of people in the community who were behind her.

If she had been more of a power seeker then I think she would have been a force to reckon with. She already influenced Australian society in a major way but she could have changed the tide significantly.

Helen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Gareth
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 07:38 PM

An interesting thread, unfortnatley history is full of "What if's".

I've posted this before but its worth repeating. A tale from my late father. (Incidently the British NHS removed the last shell splinter from his back in 1982 - To his dying day he attributed it to American "Friendly Fire" in Normandy, but I digress)

By May 1945 his unit of Self Propelled Anti-Tank Guns (M10's with the 17pdr modification) had fought from Normandy to Keil. Dead Mens Shoes had promoted him from a Leitenant to Acting Major, and OIC of the Battery. Minor wounds, but nothing to keep him way from the sharp end for any length of time. (No Blighty one)

Orders came - back to the UK to refit, destination the Far East, for the invasion of the Home Islands.

He was very happy to hear about the Atomic Bombs, and the Japanese capitulation.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freightdawg
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 10:05 PM

Little Hawk,

Good questions, and I appreciate the give and take of this thread. I would like to say again that I think one of the worst things we can do to history is place our present understanding of things back into a situation so far removed from our own. I stand guilty of it myself, and I appreciate it when someone corrects me of my own pet peeve. You asked if it would not have been better to just blockade Japan into surrendering, as they would have done so within a short period of time (according to your understanding.) Well, let's then just back up and say, why not blockade Japan after the battle of Midway? Why not just starve Germany following the invasion at Normandy? These battles (Midway and Normandy) effectively spelled the final result of the Pacific and European conflicts, but the wars raged on for some time following each of them. And, we had just developed a weapon of untold destructive power. How much did we know of our enemies' capabilities to have the same or a similar weapon? It turns out they did not. However, even as Germany was surrendering they were launching a new U-Boat that could out run a surface escort vessel while remaining submerged. Would it have turned the tide of the war? Probably not. It sure could have lengthened it though. My point is, humans have to use what knowledge and intuition they have to rise up to the situations they face when they face them. The world was reeling from two world wide conflagrations in less than a generation. People wanted peace. They wanted security. The quickest and surest way to achieve those goals AT THAT TIME was to get both Germany and Japan to surrender unconditionally, and that would involve invasion, or, as what happened, the use of the bomb.

Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to learn from the decisions of those who were victorious, as well as the vanquished, and see if we cannot keep ourselves from making the same or similar choices again. (As an aside, our economic embargo against Saddam Hussein was having exactly the opposite effect that what we wanted. Saddam was able through the black market to enrichen himself while thousands of the poorest Iraqis starved. Saddam then used their plight to create anti-western sentiment. The embargo might have worked if we could have completely isolated Saddam, but we didn't come anywhere close.)

The question is, are we any smarter??

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 10:35 PM

I think the possibility is distinct that the requirement for an unconditional surrender was a direct result of the shivering outrage that many Americans felt about the whole Japanese war, Pearl Harbor, rape camps, the Burma Road, and all. When I look back at what it must have felt like to loose friends or family or lovers in the initial strafing and bombing of Pearl Harbor, I can well imagine that nothing less than complete absolute surrender would ever move the Americans to fall back.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Feb 04 - 11:21 PM

Okay, freightdawg...I know my military history very well. The battle of Midway was simply Japan's first serious defeat at sea (Coral Sea being essentially a draw). They were by no means incapable of doing further effective offensive fighting far from Japan, as they proved in the constricted waters around Guadalcanal for the next 6 months, inflicting the most serious defeats in direct ship-to-ship fighting that the American Navy ever suffered in its history. That's why they call it "Ironbottom Sound". It's bottom is covered with sunken Japanese and American warships.

So to answer your question: why not just blockade Japan after Midway? Because Japan was far too strong at that point for anyone to even imagine blockading them yet.

Midway was the beginning of Japan's troubles, it was not the end of their ability to fight effectively. That end came after the fall of Okinawa and the sinking of the Yamato (a symbolic end to the Japanese Navy, which never launched another offensive mission of any sort after that suicide run...and they would have if they could have.) They were out of fuel for their big ships, and incapable of doing anything further except being helplessly massacred. That was most certainly not the case after Midway, when half their carriers and most of the rest of their big navy was still intact.

A battle is over when:

1. One side gives up, or...

2. One side is incapable of fighting effectively any longer, and is thereby forced to give up.

The Japanese were not inclined to give up...never had before in their history...but they were incapable by early '45 of launching any further offensive actions at sea or anywhere except in mainland China, where they still had powerful armies in the field. They had lost power at sea utterly, aside from a few submarines which were still trying to snipe at the American ships here and there. It's not necessary to kill a few hundred thousand more people or a few million more in a situation like that, when the other guy can't hurt you anymore anyway.

I do understand the emotional reasons behind Americans' desire for the unconditional surrender of Japan, however. Those were quite clear.

Now, Amos, explain to me how different, in a material sense, was the American pre-emptive attack on Iraq recently than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour? More Iraqui stuff got smashed up, more bombs dropped, more Iraquis killed, and it was an unprovoked attack on someone who had not attacked America. How would this be seen in future histories if America were to LOSE a major war and fall from her position of world dominance? Not well, I can assure you.

You may argue that the Japanese attack was a "sneak attack". Well, it HAD to be in order to work! Japan in '41 had decided that they had to fight the USA, Holland, and Britain...due to FDR's trade embargoes on Japan. FDR knew that they would fight. He expected it. The only thing he didn't know was when, using what tactics, and exactly where they would strike. The whole American Navy at the high command level knew war was coming very soon. This doesn't necessarily mean, though, that they told the general American public about it! War had become absolutely inevitable. The Japanese had to attack it in such a way that they might actually win. That certainly required "surprise" attacks, as any other kind of attack would have been idiotic from a Japanese perspective, given the nature of modern war at that time.

America decided in 2003 that it had to attack Iraq. America was so powerful that it didn't NEED to launch a sneak attack. When you hit an egg with a sledgehammer you don't have to be sneaky about it! :-)

The Japanese did not have that luxury in 1941. They were outnumbered.

Now...suppose FDR had had a couple of fireside chats in early '41 with the American public and said the truth:

"Look, folks, I've already decided that we're going to war with Germany and Japan when it can be arranged. We must for our future security on the world scene, because the Nazis are too dangerous.    The trouble is, I can't get Congress on side for that war, and I can't get a majority of Americans on side for it either, because most people would rather live quiet lives safe at home than see their young men got shot to hell on the other side of the world. Okay, so here's what I've decided to do. I am going to hit the Japs with a trade embargo that'll FORCE them to go to war. When they do, and they WILL...I just know you people are gonna be hopping mad about it, and all rally round the flag and go kick the bejeesus out of Japan. Once we're already at war with them, I figure it won't be too hard to arrange a fight with the Germans too, cos the Japanese and Germans are sort of loosely allied with each other. There you have it. Expect a totally dastardly sneak attack by those dirtly little yellow scoundrels within, oh, 9 or 10 months at the most, and get ready for some rationing and hard times. But be assured, we will win in the end."

Well, that was the truth, but if he'd said it he would probably have been impeached or something. People don't like the unvarnished truth, they prefer familiar fairy stories. So Roosevelt did what he figured had to be done...drove the Japanese into a corner...got his war...found out that Japan had a far more effective military than anyone stateside had ever expected...and had a few gloomy months till Midway.

Pearl Harbour may have surprised and shocked ordinary Americans. The only reason it shocked the US Navy brass was they had had no idea the Japanese were anywhere near that good!

Why be "outraged" over a war that was engineered in advance directly by decisions made at the White House? (and for some very good reasons, I might add...FDR was wise to take on the Axis, despite his isolationist Congress and public)

It's not a case of "sneak" attacks, or perfidy..it's a case of real power politics played out on the world stage. As is Iraq. Nothing to do with morality whatsoever.

- LH



I agree that their aggression was wrong. So was the American invasion of Iraq, in my opinion. But the victors write the news and make the judgements of right and wrong, don't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 05:46 AM

Whew! A whole lot of history being debated by you guys!
Helen, thanks for your story. It came as close to what I was trying to get at as I'm likely to see on this thread.
I am fascinated on this little debate that seems to be going on between a few of you. LH- just in the reading of your thoughts and facts here, I definitely tend towards your thinking and the process you used to get there... but it's not what I had in mind to discuss really on this thread. It's certainly an interesting one, though, so I'll let you and freightdawg battle it out between you.
Perhaps I think differently in terms of people and what influences them, and perhaps it will always be true that the world will be led through the insanity of aggression, power plays, greed, and the desire to control others. Forgive me for saying this (or not) but it is unfortunately too much a Man's World for me. No, I don't think I'm making too large of a generalization by saying this. If I were really interested in any "What If" scenarios, they would include a lot more of my gender (though we've certainly had our share of power-seekers and power-takers). I'm personally convinced it's a testosterone thing, but be that as it may....thanks for any and all contributions to thinking over poking someone's eyes out!....ellen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 01:23 PM

Ellen, you are absolutely right. It is definitely still too much a Man's World...and I am a man. I would much rather see decision-making influenced more by the female side of the population. If so, we would not necessarily see an end to war...but we'd see a whole lot less of it.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 03:24 PM

Now, Amos, explain to me how different, in a material sense, was the American pre-emptive attack on Iraq recently than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour? More Iraqui stuff got smashed up, more bombs dropped, more Iraquis killed, and it was an unprovoked attack on someone who had not attacked America. How would this be seen in future histories if America were to LOSE a major war and fall from her position of world dominance? Not well, I can assure you.



Don't ask me to defend the invasion of Iraq, Leedle Hack; it is beyond me to do so, and you need only read my last two years' posts on the subject to know that! A huge and shameful scandal, to my mind. I am glad Saddam is out of power and perhaps in the long run something good may surface from it. But what an awful means to such an end!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freightdawg
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 08:28 PM

Little Hawk,

I agree with you in broad terms about the battles and their general influences throughout WWII. My only point, poorly stated, was that if you are going to pick a point in the war to say "Japan was defeated," Midway comes as close as any. I tend to disagree with you about the significance of Midway, as the loss of four top of the line carriers was every bit as critical as the loss of one battleship. However, we are just arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin here. In the course of our discussion here I have been reminded of a third alternative that I feel like would have "possibly" been just as effective as dropping the bomb on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and that would have been the detonation of the device in an unpopulated area, to be witnessed by all who had an interest in further conflict. That way we could have got our message across to the Japanese, the Russians, and any who had designs on carving out another world war. Why Truman did not choose this option is unknown. Looking back with our view of subsequent history we can see that it would have thwarted the "assumed" inevitable invasion, and it would have spared thousands of Japanese lives.

Like I said. I just hope in future situations that we are able to look to our past and maybe learn something from it.

Regards,

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Feb 04 - 10:04 PM

Well said, freightdawg. I think Midway for the Japanese was a lot like Gettysburg for the South in the Civil War. It didn't mean the fighting was over or even close to being over, but it meant they had lost the iniative...for good...and would be forced to fight on the defensive from then on. Fighting on the defensive is a big problem, because it allows the other side the freedom to hit you where and when they please...so you're always reacting to events forced upon you rather than setting the agenda. This didn't work very well for Robert E. Lee, although he won a few more defensive battles, and it worked even less well for the Japanese, though they also won some more naval battles here and there around Guadalcanal. In Eastern Europe Stalingrad served the same purpose as regards the Germans. They also won some battles after Stalingrad, but they never again gained the initiative. It had passed to the Allies, on all fronts.

The loss of the 4 big carriers at Midway was tremendously more important than the loss of any battleship. The only thing about the sinking of the Yamato in 1945 that stands out is this: it was the last offensive sortie by the Japanese Navy, and it was a suicide mission. The Yamato and her escorts were outnumbered about 30 or 40 to one in ships, had no air cover, and the Yamato had only enough fuel in her tanks to reach the enormous American invasion fleet off Okinawa...not enough to come back home afterward. Needless to say, they were not planning to come home. 2400 men on the Yamato knew they were going to almost certain death, and they did it with typical Japanese fatalism. It was a final gesture of honor, nothing more. The Army generals had been quite contemptuous of the Navy's helplessness following Leyte Gulf in '44, and the Navy decided to show that at least they were not afraid to die...thus saving some face. It's very sad that people would feel compelled to do such things...kind of like that hopeless charge of the cavalry of Gondor in the last LOTR movie.

"We who are about to die salute you."

In return for losing the 64,000 ton Yamato, a light cruiser, several destroyers, and several thousand men the Japanese AA gunners shot down a handful of American carrier airplanes. They had been swarmed over by several hundred of them in the hour and a half it took the Yamato to die.

I'm glad that Lee's ragged Army of Northern Virginia was not similarly massacred at Appommatox on the day of their final surrender. If Phil Sheridan had had his way, they would have been. Fortunately, General Grant stopped that from happening. Thank God! (Have been reading Jeff Shaara's book 'The Last Full Measure'. Great book. I have to say this...Sheridan was a very effectice commander, excellent at winning battles, and he was also a bloodthirsty, arrogant little bastard.)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:44 AM

LH ... I just finished reading Grant's autobiography. I felt it told a lot about the charactor of the man when he held back his artillary from neddlessly slaughtering Lee's Army. I know this adds nothing to this thread, I just wanted to mention it. I think I'll get book "The Last Full Measure" that you mention. Thanks, Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 03:50 PM

You'll enjoy it, Bob. It's a superb account of the war from the days immediately following Gettysburg right on to the bitter end, and it gives equal dignity to both sides, which is something I like to see. Grant makes a good impression on me too...an honest man taking on a herculean task with utmost determination and efficiency. Lee is probably the most unforgettable commander of all time...a man who was no admirer of slavery, but fought for his home ground with absolute faith in the rightness of his cause.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freightdawg
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 06:19 PM

Back at ya Little Hawk.

Well said

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 10:27 PM

Again, I know that this statement is NOT in keeping with the theme of this thread, but one of my strongest feelings, after completing so much reading of American Civil War history is this: ... there is so MUCH to feel so sad about, on both sides of the conflict.

I am a student of history. And the more I learn, the more I know. And the more I know, the more I try to apply to TODAY. So, bringing this back to today, I'm wondering if we can draw a parallel between the forces that shaped the conflict that resulted in the civil war, and what's happening today in Iraq. (I fear I'm going far astray from the thread). Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 10:42 PM

I don't think you are far off, Deck...the most mysterioous thing about the Civil War is that a conflict of ideas was powerful enough to make murderers out of hundreds of thousands of right-thinking, contemplative people. The most mysterious think about the many sides of th Iraqi situation -- Shiite, Republican, Democrat, Ba'athista or what have you - is exactly the same thing -- the willingness to become slaughters on behalf of an idea. To paraphrase one old saw, an idea worth killing for is a beautiful thing right up to the point it is clearly understood...


A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 10:56 PM

Hmmmmmm? Something to think about. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:01 PM

Amos ... Your use of the term "murderers" bothers me. In a war situation, under accepted rules of war, common soldiers who were following orders could/should not be branded as murderers. I fear that this discussion will spread to the Nuremburg trials. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:10 PM

The passions which their ideas stirred up in them made them willing to slaughter pizen bluebellies and durty rebs left and right. I know there are conventions about this sort of thing, of course, and legally the use of murder is not supportable; but in terms of wiping out a human being's life because of a blinding misperception, I would say many of those soldiers qualified.

Regards,

A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:27 PM

Amos ... First of all, I am quite amazed. You seen to speak in the 'language' style of 1860 America. I suspect that is intentional, and well studied. My compliments.

Now as to a "blinding misperception", that is indeed where we are right now. And that is also excatly where we were in VietNam. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:28 PM

Whether it's legal murder or not, it still adds up to wantonly slaughtering other human beings, because of some rather remote idea that has taken control of you and them. My father killed a fair number of Germans in WWII (I know this by implication), but he never spoke directly about any of those incidents. He preferred to talk about the narrow escapes, the bizarre adventures, the other guys he knew in his unit, the funny incidents...anything except the actual killing. That says a good deal in itself. He obviously did not want to remember it or bring it to mind.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 15 Feb 04 - 11:38 PM

When we understand that duality,. Little Hawk, new worlds will open, I am fairly sure; to on e who has not walked the road you would thing the most burning need he would have had would be to tell what he had seen in their eyes, if he was that close, or heard as they died.

But perhaps slaughter, justified in court or no, is entirely too overwhelming to be looked at a second time.

All the more reason it should be, of course, to save it from the perpetuation that comes from an unwillingness to examine and understand.

But the devil is always i the details, in every sense of the phrase.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:12 AM

Amos ... Again, you give me things to think about. "The slaughter ... is too overwhelming to be looked at a second time." I agree with you, that that is all the more reason that it must be examined.

When I was a teenager, my Father (bless his wonderful soul) hired many returning returning WW2 veterans. As the "bosses son", learning my craft under his guidance, I worked alongside many of these men. I was cautioned never to ask one particuliar carpenter, who's name I am ashamed to admit that I don't remember even though I still see his face, about his war experiences. This particuliar man took an interest in me and we became friends. One day, I made the mistake of asking him about what he saw as a soldier in the "Battle of the Bulge." He sat me down on a saw horse and started to tell me. In a very short time, he became so upset that he was crying and ended up sitting on the floor of the house we were building. When my Father returned to the job site and saw what was happening, he rushed over and helped him into his truck. He drove the poor man home and came back to the jobsite. He made me drive the carpenters truck to his house, even though I was only 14. That night, Dad and I sat up quite late talking about what war can do to good people.

I fear that now, in Iraq, we are just creating another generation of soldiers experiencing a situation that will be hidden, again, in future generations.

Am I making any sense here? Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:20 AM

Posilutely, Bob.

Posilutely.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 06:42 AM

Freda, I really appreciated your input. It was, again, more to the point of where I was trying to go with this thread.

Deckman, you know I love you, but you wrote the following;

"Your use of the term "murderers" bothers me. In a war situation, under accepted rules of war, common soldiers who were following orders could/should not be branded as murderers".

Ya see, herein lies the rub. Thinking that wars and their rules are acceptable, and thinking that the "common soldier" is absolved from their actions of killing and maiming other human beings, whether they cry about it afterwards or not...is all part and parcel of much of what I've read here.

You guys GET OFF on WAR! Whether it's in the reading history of it, or re-arguing the battle strategies, or just proclaiming why certain leaders did or did not achieve what they set out to do...The underlying accord is that this is acceptable human behavior! Aggression against each other is not, or should not be, considered appropriate. Whether it's in defense or offense, and whether it's justified in your reasoning or not. This is the crux of the matter, guys.

Those of you who think you are pacifists are kidding yourselves.

Men need to bond over their war stories, or their sports competition, or their politics, or religions...it's an "Us against Them" kinda world. Is this part of our genetic make-up? Does the fact that we have a bigger brain in proportion to our bodies actually count for nothing when it still seems we as a species are not able to stop indiscriminately procreating, and then perpetrating violence against others of our species, (and for that matter, being responsible for the elimination of half the other species on earth in the past century alone)??
Where does it stop? Are we simply a dangerous mutant species run amok? Reading most of this thread made me feel physically ill. The calm debates regurgitating the Civil War, or Vietnam, Korean, or the World Wars etc, ad nauseum...have we learned anything? Or is it just mouth flapping rhetoric..."See how smart I am? See how much I know?" Oh PULEESE!! These discussions will not save our world, nor will they stop anyone from raping or torturing or pretending that this species is capable of living in a civilized society.
I think, no-I hope-we are doomed. I think we deserve to be given our walking papers off this wonderful gorgeous, astounding planet. We don't deserve it....
Ok, guys, go back to talking about war....ellen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 06:52 AM

Ellen ... When I was a kid, and I was once, and all of my friends got toy cars and trucks, I always got jeeps and tanks. You don't suppose that was a sign of things to come, do you! Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 07:34 AM

its the old issue of the Nuremburg excuse - I did it because it was my job and I had to.

where do we draw the line? its only people objecting, refusing, speaking out, absconding, that even creates an alternative view. when nobody questions and everyone on the inside implements....

yes, soldiers fighting in wars have to protect their country. its like self defence as a motive in crime.

but so many wars or human rights violations happen not for reasons of self defence. As the recent Iraq intelligence issue is showing, when intelligence officers provide reports that don't fit in with a ruling governments intentions, they can be "sexed up". Research and reports are manipulated to motivate & justify things which are actually happening for other reasons.

usually most people are lucky to be at a distance from such power plays. where its difficult is for the person who is close to the action. observing suffering, people covering things up, lies. What does that person do?

its easy to say "speak out". usually a person has to give up a lot to do that, and then face becoming a political lamb to the slaughter.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 07:59 AM

Since the end of the Second World War, the following disputes have been "settled" by negotiation:

Arab/Israel conflicts that arose from the creation of the State of Israel (1948; 1956; 1967; 1973; 1982).

Korean War (1950 - 1953)

Iran/Iraq War (1980 - 1988)

India/Pakistan in relation to Kashmir (1947; 1965; 1971)

Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait (1990 - 1991)

All the above have failed to create lasting settlements. The Allied leaders during the Second World War were absolutely adamant that victory could only be achieved by the unconditional surrender of the Axis Powers - they were right.

Little Hawk's contention that a blockade would have worked is no doubt true - given time. Those who had fought through the Pacific campaigns, and in south-east Asia, knew that they did not have that time. The Americans had been warned by Churchill about Stalinist Russia at Tehran and Yalta, finally realised who they were dealing with at Potsdam. There was no way in creation that they were going to allow the USSR any say in the shape and form of a post-war Japan.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: JennyO
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 08:33 AM

but mediocrity and small mindedness can have their own power, if enough voters identify. and if someone petty and inhuman enough reaches power, they too can bring in horrific human rights violations, and by their blandness and medocicrity paint it in normal, safe tones so people don't really know whats going on.

How did I just KNOW you were talking about little Johnnie even before I read your last paragraph, freda?

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:13 PM

Just because you don't like talking about war is no reason to decry those who do, Ellen. And you may misunderstand their motivations in doing so. Becoming very familiar with anything can, in itself, stir up strong interest in that subject.

Example: babies. I don't have much experience with them at this point, and I'm frankly rather uninterested in them most of the time. That doesn't mean that I think it's awful for people to go on and on talking about babies...although I wouldn't be too inclined to join in the conversation. Same goes for, let's see, mortgages and insurance policies and the stock market. Little experience, little interest.

Now war: Suppose that one had lived a number of lives in which one fought in wars...died in some...and was profoundly affected by the experience. That might produce a continuing interest in military history and strategy. Suppose that one's father had fought in a war, and this made a powerful impression on the mind of a young boy. That might produce an interest. Then too, one grows up in a culture filled with movies, books, comics, and so on about not only war, but every kind of adventure, such as: Tarzan stories, space stories, cowboy stories, samurai stories, Zorro, Davy Crockett, and so on and so on. Now a kid knows perfectly well that they're just stories...fantasies from his point of view. He plays "guns" knowing it's a fantasy. I certainly did.

I have NEVER in my adult life had any desire to be in a war, fire a gun at another human being, or engage in any such destructive activities whatsoever, because I know the difference between fantasy and reality.

So learn a little toleration, Ellen. If you want people to give up everything they "get off on" that might possibly bother someone else, you will have to eliminate virtually all forms of entertainment and literature in the world...and you won't improve things one bit by doing so.

Just accept the fact that some people are different from you, that's all. It doesn't meant they're sick or bad people.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Amos
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 12:14 PM

Ellen:

First, I don't know who you are aiming your "You guys" remark at -- is this the testosterone trip? A lot of people have a lot of intense emotional responses to war ranging from deepest despond and insane grief to Patton's alleged exhileration. It is the most intense personal experience on earth, according to some reports, so why should it surprise you that it becomes the focus of a lot of talk?

You have tried to preempt me from disagreeing with you by telling me I would be lying if I claimed to be a pacifist. Fortunately my attitude toward this war and war in general is documented through my last 1000 posts or so.

I think it is insane. I think glorifying it is insane. I certainly think that launching one preemptively is insane. I thinkl the need for one --such as in 1939 -- is only vlid because of prior insanity. (And insanity is just about my worst insult).

Hope this clears things up a bit.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freightdawg
Date: 16 Feb 04 - 02:19 PM

Let's see, Ellenpoly:

In your first post you mentioned Genghis Kahn, (sp.?), Napolean, Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden - warriors or terrorists each and every one. In a subsequent post it was you who introduced the discussion of the use of the atomic bomb. I, along with a couple of others, had some thoughts on the subject which led to a enlightening discussion, at least from my point of view. We may have veered off of the thought of your original post, which I tried to clarify with a later set of questions. You either did not see that post or chose to ignore it.

Now you blame me and the others of GETTING OFF ON WAR (your emphasis.)In your self-congratulatory tirade against all who look back on history with an enquiring eye you seem to overlook one critical fact: if we do not examine and reexamine and examine again the mistakes of our past we have no hope of avoiding them in the future! Forgive me if I am wrong, but I did not read one line of the entire discussion that indicated the author wanted to rip is opponent's head off or glory in his/her mangled body. We disagreed about some points of historical interpretation, and had a reasoned discussion about it.

It was you, was it not, that protested the use of emotion over intellect? And then, in the midst of an intellectual debate, it was you who came in kicking and screaming and throwing over all the tables and telling us we are a bunch of immature warmongers who are destined to be kicked of this wonderful, astounding planet.

Well, Ellenpoly, it may come as a shock, but there are honest, good people who have honest, frank disagreements. For instance, I cannot disagree with you more strongly when you assert that agression in self defence is wrong or is not appropriate. That is exactly why more than 6 million Jews were killed by Hitler and his henchmen. That is why Saddam Hussein got away with gassing thousands of Kurdish people along the norther border of Iraq. That is why hundreds, if not thousands, of black people were murdered in the United States just because they were black. Sometimes agression is the ONLY appropriate and justified and sane and legitimate response.

I apologise if my discussion with Little Hawk made you physically ill. The surprise attack at Pearl Harbor that started the war and the atomic bomb that ended it made a lot more people more than just a little physically ill. I, for one, would like not to have to see another war like it in my lifetime. Maybe, just maybe, if enough people would discuss why they happen and what could be done to keep those things from happening again, maybe we could prevent another one from happening.

I would still like for you to clarify your earlier posts with specific examples. That way maybe we could respond to the intent of your first post, or engage with your line of reasoning. Apparently we have not done a very good job. I await a more reasoned and intellectual response.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 11:40 AM

Ellen, do not, EVER, accuse me of such again. Not until you have been in the Infantry, have spoken with the grunts, have lived with them.

Have you held in your arms another human being, closer to you than a brother, his black skin and your white stained with his red blood and pink brains while his life left him? There's nothing "macho" or "testosterone" about it.

My father was in the Pacific; the first letter he wrote to my mother after the bombing of Hiroshima was to the effect that he could now come home to see his wife and infant son -- and he walked in on December 23, 1945, unannounced and to great joy.

If you REALLY want to see the results of war, visit The Wall.

The sole reason to fight anyone is for self defense.

Until you've been there, until you REALLY understand, don't castigate those who have been there.

Real warriors, male or female, don't talk about the killing.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 12:52 PM

Hi Ellen,

I take exception to the thought that we "get off on war." While we do talk about the war experience, and our own military experiences, I think there is a very clear reason for it.

We all know that boys and girls, of my vintage, were raised differently. Boys were culturally trained with toy soldiers and guns, while girls tended toward dolls and makeup. I know that's a big generalization, but it makes my point. When I went into the Army at 18, the cadre new what they were getting, a raw recruit that was raised as a boy. The whole focus of that basic training was to make us into killers, soldiers. And they were very good at it. IN a couple of months, I was very capable of killing someone, and given the right circumstances, I would and I could.

What I saw in the Military made a profound impression on me. All told, between two periods of active duty as well as active reserve duty, I was very involved in the American Army for 8 years. In that time I encountered the whole gambit of military men and women. I saw everything from the most ridgid, hard assed bastards that were always ready to fight (kill), to the most gentle souls you'd could ever hope to find. The gentler side were usually doctors. As a side note, as I was in the medical corps, we were often a walking contradiction of two opposite forces: killing vs saving lives.

Because of those eight years of exposure to military life, at a time in my life when I was still forming my opinions on many things, it is NOT surprising that I often use those experiences as a frame of reference for me.

Do I "get off on war", absolutly NOT. Do I think war is an acceptable choice. Again, absolutly NOT. But, and here's the rub, like it or not, we ARE at war, thanks to President bush.

To go back to your original question: "Would the thoughts carried into action by one man be enough to change everything," I would answer, hopefully yes. You mention Mahatma Gandi. We all know how his actions changed the course of events. And there are many examples, of course. I cannot help but wonder where we would be today if we had had another person in the Presidency who chose NOT to start this war.

In closing, my military experiences had a huge impact on what I am today. Does that make me a war monger, or a violant man, no.

CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Feb 04 - 10:26 PM

And getting back to your original question, Ellen. Let's take a look at Joe Stalin. I think he was one man who made a huge difference...in that his extreme paranoia and ruthlessness resulted in the Communist Russian system descending into a monstrously destructive cycle of terror in the late 30's which led to internal purges which wiped out whole sectors of agrarian society and gutted the general staff of the armed forces. It was then interrupted by the attack of Nazi Germany, which eventually had the effect of uniting the Russian population against the external enemy, something Stalin would have been highly unlikely to achieve without such a huge external threat.

What I am saying here is that one man, Josef Stalin, succeeded in brutalizing the Russian system in an extraordinary way, and that was most unfortunate. It was a legacy that helped eventually destroy that system. Things could have been much better in Russia without Stalin.

Mao Tse Tung was also one man who made a very big difference, but that's a whole other discussion.

Martin Luther King was one man who made a very big difference, this time in the positive sense. As is often the case, he paid for it with his life.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 04:34 AM

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana (1863 - 1952), The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history.
George Bernard Shaw

History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history we made today.
Henry Ford (1863 - 1947), Interview in Chicago Tribune, May 25th, 1916

History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821)

Alright gentlemen, I do see that I've whipped up a hornet's nest here.
First of all, let me clarify something. I did not mean to imply that I thought any of you were war mongers, or that you enjoyed the idea of people being killed, or that you wanted to be in on the killing in any way, shape or form.
I've read enough threads on mudcat to know most of the people who read and write here are thoughtful, reasoning, fairly intelligent souls.
I was wrong to go off on that tangent, and I apologize.

But when I began this thread, I was searching for something about what makes people tick. Why it is that there seems to be certain people at certain times that have the ability to marshall powerful forces, for good or ill, and in the doing, lead or drive entire societies behind them. It was a psychological question more than I think a historical one. But I phrased it badly, as I may be doing now, and what followed by a lot of you, were a slew of history lessons about that happened in wars, and it got into a line of debate that I can understand how I initiated with my "What if" postulation. Mea Culpa on that as well.

And when I said I felt physically ill, I was referring more to the feeling that our species seems to be stuck in a pattern it can't seem to break. That we (and let's face it, the "we" is more male than female") have an on-going fascination with aggression in all it's forms. It doesn't surprise me, nor do I want to lay blame on anyone. I am not, or I've always strived not to be, an intolerant person, even against intolerant people (not meaning any of you). I wrote more out of a sense of mourning. I mourn the loss of so many. I mourn the fact that there have been struggles initated and carried through to horrific ends. I mourn that it seems we do not learn from our history enough to figure out how to stop the horror, whether it's manifest through military aggression, political agendas, religious "traditions", territorial imperatives, or just survival of the fittest.

    The theory that there are often good reasons for wars is so hard for me, not from a realistic point of view-I'm not naive enough to think that a regeme like Hitler's or Stalin's should not have been fought against, but that it often seems more time is spent ruminating about those past pieces of history, than what is spent on practical application towards changing our future as a potentially pacific species, (and so here we are, yet again, sending people into battle). I think it needs to be dealt with at a deeper level, and I don't know if it's possible. I don't know if we can change certain natures. I feel I'm off on another tangent here, and again I apologise.

    Here in England, where I've been residing for the past 8 and half years (and before that, back in the 70s, I lived in Greece-under the junta and beyond, for a decade) I see documentaries on World War Two, weekly. It is still much in the conscience of people, and I do understand why that should be on many levels...But during these documentaries, the way they are written, it often goes like this; "Hitler killed..." "Stalin tortured...". And today, it's said by the media and in general "Saddam massacred...". All spoken as though these men actually got their own hands bloodied. And they didn't. They don't. The men at the top rarely do. They give the orders to others-ranks upon ranks of men who are willing to believe and actively perpetrate the slaughters.

    This was, and is, what I'm trying to get at. The reason, not from a political standpoint, or a moral one, but from something more visceral-that creates the leader who creates the actions done by others. Unfortunately, I realize that you can't just dissect the one without examining the whole..the times, the social conditions, all the rest. But it is what I was thinking when I began the thread.

Jeez! I feel like I've hurt some feelings here, but maybe I just pushed a lot of buttons, and maybe it's not a bad thing that it happened. I've learned some things I didn't know, which is always a good thing for me to do, and I've heard from a lot of interesting sources. I really do apologize yet again, if you thought I was blaming, or calling liars, or attacking any of you. It's all about something on a much bigger scale for me...the fate of our species, and I'm still interested in knowing your feelings about that, as well as what I hope I clarified a little more on what I was asking initially....ellen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 06:20 AM

"You guys GET OFF on WAR!"

Don't ever forget Maggie Thatcher. Or the ladies handing out White Feathers in the Great War.

.................................

No doubt when Saddam gets put on trial - assuming he hasn't worked out some deal in advance that involves keeping schtum - he'll be saying very much the same stuff about Halabja, and that kind of thing, as has been said about Hiroshima. All about how it's the duty of a ruler in a time of war, and in the cause of holding his country together to do horrible things sometimes, in order to avert worse consequences. The high and lonely duty...

There's always an excuse to be dredged out. And often enough there's some truth in it. But...

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 07:40 AM

well hi, Ellenpoly, and the boys...

when i saw the reactions to Ellenpoly's comments i though "eek" and ran away and hid for a while.

but i found it interesting that EP heard my thoughts, and I heard hers, while you others were arguing on another level. for various reasons I had my original comment to this thread deleted (glad you read it, EP, before it went).

yes, as well as maggie thatchers there are also female butchers attached to peoples armies in some countries. i came across one in a previous job, a female Maoist in India, in an area where the Maoists slaughtered people and stuck their heads on stakes outside their villages. she was a fighter in a bloodthirsty cause.

EP & I were discussing together what happens when our own country is perpetrating human rights violations, and how do the people working within the admin of those facilitating govt bodies deal with that - as they become part of the perpetration machinery.

tough question.

I'm glad EP asked it.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 12:21 PM

Thanks for your input yet again, Freda. I do think you caught the drift of my idea rather more accurately than most of the others.

I would like to add, and I actually did say this in an earlier letter, that I am not unaware of women as warriors. In the past, they have not only fought alongside their men, but were often the power behind the throne. Our gender is not either unaffected by what goes on around us, or uninvolved, either through our fathers, brothers, or sons being sent, or volunteering to fight, or having to decide not to fight for causes they believe in, or are manupulated into believing in. But there are other forces working on most of us women, internal ones, that make it a lot harder to follow an aggressive path.

I don't think you can find one area in our lives that is dominated by women, except the actual process of childbirth. Not one. You might think so, but even the "housewife" is a creation of our times.

Now I do have some theories about the Tribe, and how I think a lot of our problems today have stemmed from the movement away from that form of life. But even there, something happened way back that changed the dynamics from a possible Matriarchy to a definite Patriarchy-Big Time-big enough to have stayed with us for millenia. I'd have to go back to a "What if" situation to determine what our world would be like if things had developed differently and women ran the world, or even if we ran it in tandum, but we are where we are, and we need to go from here.

That's it-just more thoughts....ellen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Rapparee
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 12:32 PM

EP -- please check out the tribal power structures of the Navajo and Nez Perce, to name two.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freightdawg
Date: 18 Feb 04 - 05:30 PM

Ellen,

Thanks for the explanation and clarification. Your first post of 18 Feb. made a lot of sense and I can see where us "boys" kind of got off track, at least this "boy." One difference between the male and female genders is that men tend to be detail and "crisis" oriented while females tend to be process and "event" oriented. [NOTE: the above statement is a generalization, and any one example of a gender could be very different from my description - FD] What I mean is this, when I am confronted with a problem I tend to look no further than its immediate source and most proximate solution. My wife, on the other hand, is much more deliberate and attempts to find the more extended history and more tangent solutions. This is no small source of irritation to me when I want to get something FIXED now. I see this not only documented in scholarly publications, but also in any room full of 5 year old girls and boys.

So, Ellen, when I saw the mention of Hitler, et. al., I zeroed in on a historical person (or event, as in the case of the bomb) and his/her/its relation to history and in the process kind of just blipped right over your intention.

In response to your next to last post, I think you are absolutely correct in stating that it is a psychological trait inherent within all of us (male and female) that looks toward a single leader. In times of crises in particular, but also in times of peace, we congregate around someone who demonstrates vision, clarity of thought, decisiveness, and for want of a better term, charisma. I do not think this is a bad thing, per se. Like so many of our human quirks and "instincts," I believe it is truly an amoral trait. For much of our existance it is so automatic that we do not even recognize it. Little boys on a playground will select two "leaders" to choose up sides for a baseball game. They may not be the best players, but they may be recognized for choosing the best teams, or because they own the baseball and bats, or they may be the neighborhood bullies. Ever watch little girls at a sleepover? Within 15 minutes you can identify the exact pecking order of perceived social standing within the group, from the dominant "mother hen" to the shy little "wallflower." I may be overstating my case here, but I just think it is so inherent within us that it is part of what makes us human. I do not think it can be identified as a failing because it is the visionaries, the real decisive people that have kept our species alive as long as it has existed. (think of the harnessing of fire as a tool, to the discovery of penicilin.) They also are responsible for all we consider art. Vision and decision and charisma make us human and we could no more remove them from our psyches than we could remove our brain.

Now, the real crux of this discussion is our moral evaluation of the results of these visionaries, decision makers, and charismatics. You said, and I think correctly, that many will follow orders because they believe the leader and want to perpetuate the atrocities we have been discussing. Likewise, some see the brilliance and positive results of the vision of their leader and want to reap its benefits. Others, and please do not discount this, follow orders to stay alive. Those who challenged Hitler or Hussein were not thanked for their constructive criticism. Is one decision more moral than the other? If you gas Jews just to stay alive does that make you less culpable? Conversely, if you fought to free the slaves were you more moral than a Confederate rebel? This, among others, was the great question at Nuremburg.

And so, Ellen, one of my super-simplistic and testosterone driven male answers to your very interesting question is the mystical world of morality. Why was there a Hitler? begs the question of Why was there a Lincoln? Gandhi and King were cut from the same bolt of cloth as Osama Bin Laden, yet we in the west view Gandhi and King as moral and Bin Laden as immoral. When we begin to break down cultures and sub-cultures and eventually get to each individual we see larger and larger differences as to what we consider moral, or acceptable, and immoral, or unacceptable. I, for one, consider the use of the atomic bomb to be moral based on what it prevented and what it ended. I would assume you would consider it immoral based on what it caused, and its larger statement of the futility of war. For every "X" that I think is immoral, there is likely someone else who thinks it is not only moral, but necessary.

If, and that is a big if, I am correct, the question moves from a psychological one to a metaphysical one, and I am running low on brain cells right now.

Thanks again, and my best regards,

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 04:19 AM

Ah, freightdawg...thank you! That was such a good posting! It explained so much about...so much! Thank you. This is exactly where I wanted to go, and you offered some important, thoughtful, intriguing ideas.

I hope more people will write in with their own perceptions, because I really do think this is an important issue. I will also add that what you brought up about children's pecking orders on the playground is kind of what I had in mind when I referred to the "alpha male" way back in my first(?) posting...We are social animals, and take away the rather thin veneer of what we've created in the past few thousand years, the need for a leader hasn't changed much.

Nature or nuture? I offer that up towards discussion on the individual leader. Whether that charisma you spoke of leads the leader towards the organization and maintenence of an inclusive community (vs exclusive) based on group needs and built on group talents...or takes the road towards despotism and an ego-driven, force-maintained hierarchy may well be more about the influences surrounding the rearing of the leader him/herself.

And the funny thing is that being fear-driven, as you mentioned towards reasoning why soldiers follow orders that may be against their own personal feelings, is BOTH Nature and Nuture, making it doubley hard to break. Fear has proven to be such a compelling factor in our make-up that it leads not only to anger and violence, but to a more complicated set of reasoning, (ie-brainwashing) that will provide acceptable answers towards fulfilling despicable ends.

I always think of "The Prince" by Machiavelli. It is such a reasoned formula and makes so much sense that it scares the bejiggers out of me. Like the "Art of War", and "Mein Kampf", and "The Communist Manifesto"...all so well thought out, so easy to be taken as a guide to life, if you will. We like to think that books like the New Testament, The Torah, the Koran, etc, (though the first two were written by several people at least) offer alternative moral/societal choices...(even though they've been subborned by some of the writers of the first list into their own theories). But...sorry, trying to organize a through-thought here- They are all about the summoning and organization of power. They are all built on an US vs THEM code of belief and behavior. They are all (arguably) exclusive, rather than inclusive communities.

Another book by Colin Wilson to throw into the mix-and just for it's title at the moment-"The Outsider", goes to my point (finally I'm getting to my point?) Does there always HAVE to be an OTHER? And if so, is the definition of the "other" really one of the major things at the core of what establishes the tribe and its' leader?

I have a theory, and it goes loosely like this-the only way we will ever be able to become a whole as a species, is if we can (because we seem to need to) establish the "other" as an Alien Species-preferably not one on earth. If we need a "bad guy", and I'm being most simplistic here, would we be not best served by creating the outsider as FAR outside as possible?? Now, needless to say, if ever the time comes that some other life-form does make an entrance on our planet, we would hardly welcome them with open arms (and the arms we might have developed would in themselves have cost waaay too much...unless we could convince people that our only form of defense is a mental one...but I'm not here to start a thread on good science fiction as an alternative political force...or am I? Whew! Too much coffee this morning...but if you can winnow out my thoughts here, and care to comment on any or all of it, I'd be grateful...ellen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 05:40 AM

there's always a head chimp, some people hanging around the head chimp, and then the disempowered ones.

I even watch my cats play this game - whenever a new cat comes to our co-op, they fight until one establishes dominance, and the new one settles into a corner that is their own.

women in groups play it among themselves too. while i am fundamentally loyal to other women, and my close friends are women, i think these power games happen in any group of people. but our different discussions on this thread have highlighted our different ways of thinking.

people operate in their own small circles, or larger circles. the real power games are happening on a grand scale, globally, and nationally.

it is easy to observe power networks within the closer circles. it is scary to step into the big circles - these are connected to media, bureaucracies, Godzilla governments, big business, and have their global power mechanisms.

the moral dilemma part is to what extent does does a little gnat caught up in the moonlight squeak before being flattened by the huge mega Godzilla that is leaving bodies in its trail?

easier to go out & listen to moosic...

fre da people

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:34 AM

...it is a psychological trait inherent within all of us (male and female) that looks toward a single leader.

Another generalisation there. About the only thing you can truly say of "all of us" is that we are born and we die.

If we need a Bad Guty, and an externmal one isn't readily apparant, is inside us.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:46 AM

well, you could also say, nothing is good or bad, its just our thoughts that we project which make a thing so. (quote from Hannibal Lecter)

..and there is always an exception. but you could say that the exceptions are the chimps that sit on the other side of the tree and have accepted their role..

or then, everything is an exception, and there are no rules.. but thats when the instinctual ones take over..

my cat is sitting in front of my keyboard and there are little cat hairs between the keys.

she is a beautiful exception. but she still waits for the other cat to eat.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 11:37 AM

"There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so" That's from Hamlet, so Hannibal Lector stole from the best. Just thought I'd let you know that, Freda.

Being a great cat lover,(actually I worship them, but don't tell anyone) and also a general animal lover, I have always had the most trouble with my human family. I find myself hiding away more and more because I don't know how to handle people emotionally any more. Why this is, is probably down to watching too much telly, reading too many books, and surfing too many political and news websites. The more I hear, the more I fear. (Naa, not really-"Fear is the little death"-Frank Herbert).
If we can't even figure out who's pulling the strings, how in hell do we have the slightest chance of cutting them?

One of you nice people suggested I look at some Native American tribes for alternative social/political dynamics, and I am, thank you. The more I read, the more I know there is to read on the subject of Power and the Individual, vs Power and the Group. I just finished reading one intriguing website- (http://www.artemiscreations.com/scienceofmatriarchy/) which was very thought provoking on how our species may have developed, and just where aggression really began to stick it's nose in. A couple of others, I'll mention here, but only if you're interested...more on the idea of matriarchy, or matrilineage and how it differs, in theory anyway, from patriarchies; (http://www.promatriarchy.net/comparison/war_or_peace/saharasia.html)
(http://www.promatriarchy.net/essentials/matriarchy.html)

We may be operating on instinct, but it appears male and female instincts are different enough to impact mightily on society. This was not a great surprise to me, having read enough and studied enough over the years on different forms of cultural anthropology, but I am still fascinated by alternate possibilities.

Again the questions that persist- we have always seemed to have needed a belief system, something to explain the unexplainable. Most of these systems have a deity or deities who are more powerful than we are. They are really in control, and one way or another, it is our responsibility to follow their rules, and keep them sweet.
"As above so below"? Is our creation of powerful figures who we follow and adore (and sometimes fear) simply a recreation on the earthly plane of the leader/deity?

Okay, my head is exploding. I have a feeling I may have lost most of you guys, now that I'm wanting to go further afield than who did what to whom historically, but I'm hoping there may be some interest to follow in this line...if not, well, it's been swell....ellen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 11:50 AM

HEY! Stop bothering me with all these questions. I'm trying to find time to play with my toy soldiers and tanks in my sandbox!! SSSHHHHUUUUHHHH!. Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 05:29 PM

You're getting into some good stuff here, Ellenpoly. I typed a fairly lengthy comment awhile back, hit "submit"...and it vanished into hyperspace. (Sigh!) I will maybe get back on this later...not enough time now.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 06:20 PM

..my attrib to Hannibal L was a little comment on the sociopathic potential of that view, EP - I don't think HL ever made that comment!!

not when we last lunched..

i think that all schoolchildren should be taight to play an instrument, sing, or play chess, and that in every country there should be claculated programs for them to perform in choirs, orchestras, chess matches with children from nearby suburbs/countries/differing cultures.

we could breed out war by doing things like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freightdawg
Date: 19 Feb 04 - 07:51 PM

Allow me a little digression...

Who would you consider the master of terror and suspense? For many, it is not the slasher, blood and mayhem novelists, but Alfred Hitchcock. Why? Because he knew how to bring the terror out from within his viewers. He understood that the most terrifying thing we can imagine is...the terror we can imagine.

Why do we need an "other" to exclude and vilify? Could it not be because we see in him/her/it something of ourselves that we really wish we did not see? Thus the terror from without is really the terror from within.

Now, what in the world was I thinking about......

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,Ellenpoly
Date: 21 Feb 04 - 05:59 AM

You know, I have no idea why we seem to need an "other", freightdawg. I do think it is certainly something in ourselves that scares us, and that's why we need to create these monsters under the beds to focus on instead. It's also why our current government is using fear once again to keep us huddled behind our doors because if we get out and start talking together (or singing, yes, Freda, I absolutely agree we need more music and voices raised in song...this is a proven mode of increasing our seratonin levels, among other things)we will see beyond the differences.

Little Hawk, PLEASE try again! I know how frustrating it is to write something out, getting it just right, and then..whoops! It's in the Net-Ether somewhere. But I've always found your comments to be thought-provoking and helpful.

I'm reading a book by Sheri S. Tepper, who is just amazing at putting into ideas words far more interesting than mine, something that has stuck with me. She said (and I'm paraphrasing here, as I don't have the book with me). Humans still believe they are perfectable, even though nothing has really changed in their evolutionary make-up for all these thousands of years. We are virtually the same now as we always were. I am in agreement with her on this, and it puts me at odds with several of my more optimistic friends who are still convinced that our actions can change the world beneficially. I just don't see it.

Oh, dear, I'm in too much of a funk today to write more. Sorry...ellen (PS-Come on, Deckman, put down that cannon, and play with us!)

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 02:19 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Deckman
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 12:50 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 05:07 AM

at our co-op, we've talked about using one of the properties to provide free accomodation to a couple of nurses, who could be close and keep their eye on any people who need care, in exchange for the accom.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: freda underhill
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 05:10 AM

sorry , wrong thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: GUEST,freda underhill
Date: 26 Feb 04 - 10:32 PM

here are some excerpts from the Mahabarata and from machiavelli - on the moral dilemma theme. These touch on dilemmas for leaders - for us, as the led, we have our own dilmmas (mentioned at the end).

Krsna replied... "If he fights fairly, Bhîma will never succeed in gaining victory. If, however, he fights unfairly, he will surely be able to kill Duryodhana. ".....
Krsna seeing the Pândavas stricken with remorse, said.... "Out of the desire to do you good, I repeatedly applied my illusory powers and caused them to be killed by various means in battle. If I had not adopted such deceitful ways, you would never have been victorious, nor could you have regained your kingdom or your wealth." ,,,,,,,

He continued, "You should not mind the fact that your enemy has been killed deceitfully. When one is outnumbered by his enemies, then destruction should be brought about by stratagem. "
The Mahâbhârata, translated by Chakravarthi V. Narasimhan, "Shalya Parva" [Columbia University Pres, 1965, p.172 & 175]

we now have established rules of war - but not every military force follows them.

another expression of this kind of dilemma comes in Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince:

It must be understood, however, that a prince... cannot observe all of those virtues for which men are reputed good, because it is often necessary to act against mercy, against faith, against humanity, against frankness, against religion in order to preserve the state. Thus he must be disposed to change according as the winds of fortune and the alternations of circumstance dictate. As I have aleady said, he must stick to the good so long as he can, but being compelled by necessity, he must be ready to take the way of evil...

Machiavelli himself did not admire tyrants and did not endorse an amoral opportunism. Thus, the implication of amorality or immorality in the passage above, although very limited if it is read carefully, contrasts with a passage in Machiavelli's own Discourses:

...those are held to be infamous and detestable who extirpate religion, subvert kingdoms and republics, make war on virtue, on letters, and on any art that brings advantage and honour to the human race, i.e. the profane, the violent, the ignorant, the worthless, the idle, the coward.

A genuine moral dilemma arises when a wrong must be committed, not just for any purpose, but unavoidably for a genuinely good purpose.
as well as considering the moral dilemma, anyone considering such a moral dilemma carries the burden of comparing which is the greater or lesser of two evils, and of self examination to see what their motive truly is, and then living with the crap that follows from disrupting or exposing a rotten system.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Helen
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 04:30 PM

Some thoughts I've had from reading this thread, which may or may not be on topic.

Yesterday I watched a clever video called Babakiueria. It is a satirical look at what Australian society would be like if the Aboriginal people of Australia were the dominant social group.

It turns the tables on what society here is like. What if white people had no power in our society and black people did? What if television had token whites instead of token blacks? What if white people's children were taken away from them "for their own good"? etc etc . If in fact the Aboriginal people were the dominant group, then as a generalisation only, I cannot imagine them making the same power based decisions as the white people have made. Their social culture seems different from the white tradition of revering power and powerful people, although I know how limited my knowledge of their culture is.

The title Babakiueria comes from the opening situation of the video. White people having a barbecue in a barbecue area and the Aboriginal people come up the bay in a little boat, plant the Aboriginal flag to claim this land, and ask the locals what they call this place. They answer "barbecue area" so then the Aboriginal people call the whole country Babakiueria. (This is based on the story/belief that that is how the kangaroo got its name. A white bloke asked a black fella what it was called and the reply was "kangaroo", meaning, "I don't know".)

It was written by Geoffrey Atherden who also wrote (I think) the recent tv series called Grass Roots, about the power plays in microcosm which occur in local government councils.

EP, it's interesting that you mention Colin Wilson's book, The Outsider. I wrote my Honours year dissertation for English Lit on the hero as outsider in fiction, specifically Ursula Le Guin's fiction. I just started re-reading her book called The Dispossessed which I focused on in my paper.

Another thought: I have heard it said that the most extreme disagreements/wars are between the people with the most similar beliefs. We can agree to differ with people with completely different views but when someone with similar views comes along we argue the toss about the smallest details.

Helen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Peace
Date: 06 Mar 04 - 06:05 PM

Yeah. When two people argue, there are three opinions in the room.

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:30 AM

"Another thought: I have heard it said that the most extreme disagreements/wars are between the people with the most similar beliefs. We can agree to differ with people with completely different views but when someone with similar views comes along we argue the toss about the smallest details."

Helen

Thanks so much for your imput, Helen. This thread has kind of wandered all over the place to the point that I haven't been adding to it. But this last part of your posting really hit me.

I think there is something important here about how factions of essentially the same belief system can be as deadly as those whose beliefs are more dissimiliar. It's as if one is far more of a traitor to a cause if it originates as dissent amongst the ranks.
Perhaps that's also why a lot of revolutions actually succeed when it's a portion of the "oppressors" who turn against their own, either out of self preservation, or out of a change of heart and belief...

It's certainly the case with Hitler that he was hurt just as much, if not more, by the officers he considered his closest allies. I imagine that the "Et tu Brute's" of the world have had quite a hand in changing the course of our history.

Ellen

Subject: RE: BS: Moral Dilemma Part 2
From: Helen
Date: 07 Mar 04 - 06:43 AM

Yes, Ellen, but my quote (pseudo quote?) refers not just to traitors from within. When I first heard it the person who said it referred to Jews and Arabs whose cultures have a lot of parallel history, way back in time. You could say it also about Jews and Christians with the Old Testament of the Bible referring to Jewish society. Also, my memories of sitting around at Uni with a bunch of social lefties and the Trotskyists arguing with the Socialists arguing with the Communists etc etc ad infinitum. They wouldn't argue so long and hard with the Liberals (who are the conservative party here) because they would assume that the divide was too deep to try to argue or convince or persuade.

Helen