[andyt]

Just reverse the nationalities:

[Gunnair]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

So when do we get to criticize how the business was done by 'our' side?

Is there a point to even doing so?

I suppose that we learn things like how inappropriate it is to round up populations of extra-nationals and put them in camps. There is no guarantee that it won't happen again in Canada. If an existential threat comes along that is sufficiently urgent and dangerous, our descendants may very well round up group "X" for internment. Will they be wrong to do so? Maybe yes ... maybe no. You can't possibly isolate events like that from their complex surroundings and pass judgement on them ... most certainly not generations later.

You seem to be focusing on the specifics which doesn't answer the more generic aspect of your stance.

Also, one can isolate events from their complex surroundings, as long as they are isolated within the context of their complex surroundings. That's the difference between the amateurish revisionism that looks at events from a 21st century moral and ethical perspective and the more professional revisionism that looks at events in light of new information that may have been hidden or lost.

The roles of the Turks in Crimea is a great example of that. Move away from the 'Turks were useless' attitude based on British contemporary arrogance to one that sees a more modern and positive view of the Turks playing a far more important role based on other contemporary sources and archaeology.

[andyt]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Vonnegut also went more than a little nuts.

They would call it PTSD today, I expect.

Sure you're not mixing that up with his son?

[Jabberwalker]

andyt andyt:

Just reverse the nationalities:

The words "grow up" keep forming on my lips.

[andyt]

And apropos absolutely nothing:

[Jabberwalker]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

So when do we get to criticize how the business was done by 'our' side?

Is there a point to even doing so?

I suppose that we learn things like how inappropriate it is to round up populations of extra-nationals and put them in camps. There is no guarantee that it won't happen again in Canada. If an existential threat comes along that is sufficiently urgent and dangerous, our descendants may very well round up group "X" for internment. Will they be wrong to do so? Maybe yes ... maybe no. You can't possibly isolate events like that from their complex surroundings and pass judgement on them ... most certainly not generations later.

You seem to be focusing on the specifics which doesn't answer the more generic aspect of your stance.

Also, one can isolate events from their complex surroundings, as long as they are isolated within the context of their complex surroundings. That's the difference between the amateurish revisionism that looks at events from a 21st century moral and ethical perspective and the more professional revisionism that looks at events in light of new information that may have been hidden or lost.

The roles of the Turks in Crimea is a great example of that. Move away from the 'Turks were useless' attitude based on British contemporary arrogance to one that sees a more modern and positive view of the Turks playing a far more important role based on other contemporary sources and archaeology.

I can't possibly comment on Crimea as my knowledge is rather thin.

I know a bit more about Dresden. The new information that has come to light is that the civilian casualty figures have ben drastically reduced by the German government in recent years and that the numbers (that even Vonnegut "who was there") that were four fold higher and gospel for 60 years were a creation of the GDR and the Soviet Union for propaganda purposes ... "those Imperialist baby-killer monsters!" The BBC item makes no mention of any of this. The whole damned story is based on 1950's Soviet Propaganda for the most part.

[Gunnair]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

So when do we get to criticize how the business was done by 'our' side?

Is there a point to even doing so?

I suppose that we learn things like how inappropriate it is to round up populations of extra-nationals and put them in camps. There is no guarantee that it won't happen again in Canada. If an existential threat comes along that is sufficiently urgent and dangerous, our descendants may very well round up group "X" for internment. Will they be wrong to do so? Maybe yes ... maybe no. You can't possibly isolate events like that from their complex surroundings and pass judgement on them ... most certainly not generations later.

You seem to be focusing on the specifics which doesn't answer the more generic aspect of your stance.

Also, one can isolate events from their complex surroundings, as long as they are isolated within the context of their complex surroundings. That's the difference between the amateurish revisionism that looks at events from a 21st century moral and ethical perspective and the more professional revisionism that looks at events in light of new information that may have been hidden or lost.

The roles of the Turks in Crimea is a great example of that. Move away from the 'Turks were useless' attitude based on British contemporary arrogance to one that sees a more modern and positive view of the Turks playing a far more important role based on other contemporary sources and archaeology.

I can't possibly comment on Crimea as my knowledge is rather thin.

I know a bit more about Dresden. The new information that has come to light is that the civilian casualty figures have ben drastically reduced by the German government in recent years and that the numbers (that even Vonnegut "who was there") that were four fold higher and gospel for 60 years were a creation of the GDR and the Soviet Union for propaganda purposes ... "those Imperialist baby-killer monsters!" The BBC item makes no mention of any of this. The whole damned story is based on 1950's Soviet Propaganda for the most part.

Right, you're back into the specifics again, but your stance, as presented, appeared to be as a general rule. One doesn't get to revisit history and make modern judgment the actions.

From a moral and ethical point of view? Not really unless of course the moral and ethical judgments of the time also match their modern counterparts - ie, the Holocaust.

But one can certainly revisit the actions and judgments of the past based on new facts. That's why most people don't think Custer died a hero on the Greasy Grass these days. More of a tactical idiot and arrogant blowhard (mind a lot of his contemporaries thought the same thing)

[Jabberwalker]

Right, you're back into the specifics again, but your stance, as presented, appeared to be as a general rule. One doesn't get to revisit history and make modern judgment the actions.

From a moral and ethical point of view? Not really unless of course the moral and ethical judgments of the time also match their modern counterparts - ie, the Holocaust.

But one can certainly revisit the actions and judgments of the past based on new facts. That's why most people don't think Custer died a hero on the Greasy Grass these days. More of a tactical idiot and arrogant blowhard (mind a lot of his contemporaries thought the same thing)[/quote]

You are of course correct but even if you re-examine (and "de-bunk" if you happen to work for the Beeb) with fresh evidence in hand, you will not likely overcome your own particular cultural bias. Like quantum events, the act of observing skews the form of what it being observed. We may be better to leave history alone.

Back to specifics ... The Romans were the winners and Tacitus was a prolific chronicler. He said some pretty awful things about our Celtic ancestors ... likely for propagandistic purposes. Our ancestors had no written script at the time and we have no idea what their account of the same events would look like. That is no reason to rip up Tacitus and de-bunk the Romans.

BTW, We can only guess but I doubt that the Romans would have had any problem at all accepting the Holocaust as a legitimate way of eliminating an unwanted population. They were the ones who plowed the soil of Carthage with salt, after all.

[Jabberwalker]

Xort Xort:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

"Facts" out of context ... thus is the nature of propaganda.

Does the context of bomber command having 50% casualties make taking vengeance on a civilian population any different?

It is highly likely that there was a second world war precisely because the German population and Heimat were pretty much untouched by the first world war. They did not feel that they had not been defeated and that they had been sold out. The American General Pershing had predicted that it would happen and he was against accepting the German armistice and voted for continuing the fight into the German homeland. Easy for the newly arrived Americans to say that, eh? Monstrous idea, eh? Can you imagine if the British Imperial forces, French bolstered by the newly arrived millions of Americans had opted for two more years at war to utterly destroy the German military and devastate the heartland of Germany? Monstrous. Vengeful. It would have killed millions more. Germany, though would have understood that they were, in fact, defeated. Tens of millions would not have died a quarter century later. It didn't happen that way. the German people went "What the ..?" when told that they were defeated. By their measure, the losers were Belgium and France.

The field command leadership of the RAF during WWII , Parks, Harris, Leigh-Mallory, etc. were all WWI veterans and they would have been acutely aware that they were doing it all over again and why. It would have been front and centre in their strategic thinking (and just about everyone else's) that the only way to prevent it happening all over again, one more time was to utterly defeat Germany and lay waste to their homeland. They were almost certainly right. Even at the late hour of the bombing of Dresden, Germany was still formidable and powerful. They had a million people involved in antiaircraft defences, alone, still. it was the Red Army that finally broke them and man, did they ever lay waste to what was left.

You're "vengeance" is only that through modern eyes. They did what they thought that they had to do based on what they knew ... which is usually how the history of our species unfolds.

[Xort]

I said I wasn't going to go into the depth of the argument.

Again, everyone must live with what they did, while everyone else will judge them for what they did.

[Jabberwalker]

21st century snots are going to judge 20th century men who did what was necessary to do. Those "judges" must be pretty impressed with themselves.

[raydan]

One small current event and we can find about 19 different "what happened, how it happened and why it happened". Imagine how many "whats, hows and whys" there are for something that happened 70 years ago.

[Xort]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

21st century snots are going to judge 20th century men who did what was necessary to do. Those "judges" must be pretty impressed with themselves.

You seem to be smug enough about your own views for everyone.

[raydan]

Xort Xort:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

21st century snots are going to judge 20th century men who did what was necessary to do. Those "judges" must be pretty impressed with themselves.

You seem to be smug enough about your own views for everyone.

...a mini you.

[Unsound]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

21st century snots are going to judge 20th century men who did what was necessary to do. Those "judges" must be pretty impressed with themselves.

Wouldn't you say that time and distance helps to judge more dispassionatly? Of course historians of the time had a different view. They lived through it. Which is good and bad. Personal experience lends a unique perspective, but also makes it neccesary, for their own sanity, to downplay or justify their own questionable actions.

It shouldn't be controversial to say that both sides did terrible things. Maybe they were justified, maube they only seemed justified at the time. Time gives us the perspective to judge it better than they could. Just because we can now say that our boys weren't always angels doesn't mean we can't also understand why they would've thought it neccesary to do terrible things. I don't think that re-examing and trying to learn from the past means we judge the particpants on a personal level, just that we can see where and why they may have strayed from the path of righteousness and hopefully apply those lessons in the future.