And I wish I were joking about that. But sometimes your zeal for devil's advocate turns into zealotry, and then it's just too maddening to participate.
Look, I used the phrase "military tactics" for a very simple reason. My impression of Jambo's and your thread (the Nuremberg aspect at least) was as follows: You questioned the legality, and by extension the legitimacy of the justice doled out, of the Nuremberg trials because our conscience wasn't exactly clean regarding civilian casualties during the war. Jambo's retort was that Goering wasn't in the dock due to collateral damage suffered as a result of battlefield/command decisions (which I couched as "military tactics"); but rather for the systematic attempted extermination of an entire race of peoples, which happened separate and away from the battlefield entirely, and didn't resemble any civilian casualties inflicted by the US.
Let me just momentarily extrapolate on that point. I'm not attempting to argue that every single motive and action taken by US forces in the Second World War was as pure as the wind driven snow. Nor am I blinded by a patriotism so fragile that to pull on a single thread would unravel the entire tapestry of our nation's history as I know it. I am simply saying that the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties at the hands of the US military were collateral damages born of legitimate military tactics and command decisions. Now you may bring forward an instance such as Hiroshima, when civilian centers were deliberately targeted. My answer would be that in such cases, in particular "the bomb", there is a measurable and specific argument to be made which says the demonstration of our ability to inflict maximum damages with minimal man power (in other words, flattening 2 cities with 2 bombs) was necessary in order to preserve lives. What were the casualty estimates on Operation Downfall, the mainland Japan invasion? 750,000 Allied soldiers? Perhaps millions of Japanese civilians?
Now let me hasten to add, separating battlefield operations from the Holocaust doesn't mean that certain German leaders didn't bare a criminal burden for those "purely military" actions, they were the aggressors after all. And separating the aggressor form those defending that aggression is paramount to begin any discussion of who the good guys and the bad guys were in one of history's most engulfing episodes.
Furthermore, I can think of no instance in which US grunts nor subordinate officers could be guilty of systematic/institutionalized "war crimes" for carrying out the orders of their commanders throughout the war. Most of the German soldiers fall within this "only following orders" scope as well. But not those participating in the Holocaust. From Himmler to the camp commandant down to the guards, everyone involved was guilty of ravenous criminal acts on some level and did not fall under the protective auspices of simply carrying out the assigned orders of their commander. This serves as a good demarcation line distinguishing legitimate military actions of subordinate ground forces and criminal behavior, in my estimation.
Oh, I almost forgot, the Soviets. Did pointing at Germany's hierarchy and screaming "murderers!" while enjoying a vodka with Russian generals make the US and the UK hypocrites? Yes. Almost certainly. But being a hypocrite in order to fend of the more clear and present danger doesn't qualify Churchill and FDR for Nuremberg gallows, in my opinion.
But it all boils down to this - what are you trying to achieve with this Titus? I can think of only two possibilities. Either you are playing pure devil's advocate, attempting through discussion to demonstrate that anyone whom thinks it plausible that Ike and Truman belong in the dock with Goering is a bit touched in the head - to which I'd ask, what's the point? We know that's a looney tunes argument already. Or you truly believe that argument is plausible given the technical definition of the charges leveled at Nuremberg, and YOU are the one touched in the head.
If it's the former I find this entire exercise a monumental waste of all our time. If it's the latter ... well ... added to your grossly inappropriate Holocaust satire of some weeks ago I would begin to have grave, grave concerns.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Look, as I said myself... this isn't necessary. I'm no fan of tking this position as seemingly "against" the results of the Nuremberg Trials... but I think it is important to put the trials in the proper context, and Jambo's initial post using them as the "precedent" for war crimes tribunals against OBL (or the lack thereof) is why I am doing it.
I did not, nor do I now, argue against the "legality" of the trials, because our legal system is based on statutory, precedent-based decisions founded on basic enumerated governmental authority. What I questioned was the "legitimacy" of our participation with other, less able "legal" partners and the taint that puts on both those procedings and all that stems from them.
By structuring Nuremberg the way we did, the Allies set themselves up for criticism and questions. The same was done at the reperations conferences at the end of the Treaty of Versailles... such a burden was placed on Germany that it couldn't possibly have accomplished what was demanded of it. What possible good could come from doing the same thing today, in regards to OBL?
I'm NOT saying all of this to argue with Ryan or Ryan's opinion. I am doing this to make MY point in relation to Jambo's post. If you cannot or will not present your own case because it is too difficult to participate with an argumentative Titus, then feel free to continue to "not participate". Just accept that my opinion (as unsatisfactory as that is in your eyes) will be the only one that everyone sees, rather than yours counter to mine.
Why is it so difficult to understand that I am simply saying Nuremberg is a poor standard to use for the precedent of international justice when it comes to addressing the crimes perpetrated by OBL... in my opinion? I have offered numerous other examples that I feel are better precedents than Nuremberg... but you focus ONLY on my issues with Nuremberg.
Why? Because those opinions and issues are contrary to your own?
Please... that's kind of juvenile, isn't it?
Post a Comment