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?