The Counterproductivity of the War on Terror
Last week I discovered this page by Mark Humphrys which included a critique of me and some of the opinions I express on this blog. Mark responded in the comments with some of the response directed to me and some to others. From the discussion a few interesting issues arose that I’m interested in talking about some more.
Essentially Mark appears to be bemused that someone who belongs to what he describes as “the globally persecuted gay minority” could be opposed to the “war on Islamism” as he describes it. Let me say categorically that I am not opposed to policies that try to minimise religious fundamentalism and release us all from what I feel is one of the most destructive forces in history. What I am opposed to on this front at least is the presentation of some kind of notion that Islam is the only religion plagued by fundamentalism. It’s quite simply not. The rise in fundamentalist evangelism in the United States is equally worrying to me and is equally dangerous for fellow members of the LGBT community, for women, for immigrants and for people of other faiths. People who blow up abortion clinics, for example, can not to my mind be said to have a moral superiority over people who blow up pizza parlours in Jerusalem. The scale of the violence is incidental to the reality of fundamentalist violence within religions. As long as the American establishment courts religious fundamentalism while at the same time denouncing it elsewhere I find the moral argument for a ‘war against Islamism’ hypocritical, worrying and unconvincing.
The second point I wanted to make is, as I said in the comments to the original post, I truly believe that most neocons are fundamentally good people. I have heard George Bush, Richard Perle and co. speak about the project of spreading liberal constitutionalism and the notion of freedom and I can’t help but believe that fundamentally they support the idea of freedom and liberty everywhere. The fact that the spread of freedom, liberty and constitutional democracy is good for America is to some extent irrelevant to me; the ideal is also good for individuals and communities and that’s what matters from my perspective. I also agree with the notion that the world’s only superpower has a responsibility both to itself and to the international community. If a country has the capacity to step in and help people to liberate themselves then I believe they should do so.
HOWEVER America does it badly. That’s the problem. America is practicing exceptionalism by saying that they will liberate people in country X but not step in to help end genocide in country Y. If you are going to undertake a project such as this then you have to do so consistently and with a clear decision making structure that is transparent and accountable, otherwise your project is both counterproductive and open to criticism of ulterior motives.
In terms of counterproductivity the argument should be clear. By practicing exceptionalism America ensures that countries who are strategically important for them can essentially continue to act as they wish towards their people with no risk of American action against them. Take for example Pakistan which is a vital ally in the ‘War Against Terror’ – America was quite prepared to lend legitimacy to the Musharaff regime which is essentially perpetual martial law despite the fact that he took control in a military coup, is completely controlled by the military, gives the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency free reign to spread terror and insecurity in the country and, in turn, allows intimate ideological relationships between the ISI and the mullahs to flourish. America however invites him to the White House, gives him a unending river of ‘aid’ money and calls him a reformer and modernist in return for the freedom to capture, detain and interrogate suspects in the Tribal Areas where Pakistani law has no jurisdiction. They develop ghost detention camps in those same areas and are happy for Pakistani officials to do the dirty work for them. How can America claim that this is a war for freedom and liberty and democracy when they behave in this manner? How can you criticize people who criticize the policy?
America needs people like me to support them – people who believe that the ideal of speaking constitutional liberalism and freeing people from the yoke of oppression are laudable aims and America’s responsibility – but they isolate us by acting in this manner. America has lost all good will in the vast majority of the human rights community.
The second way in which it is counterproductive is in the creation of blowback. When America armed resistance against the Soviets in Afghanistan they unwittingly created a band of jihadists with sophisticated training, good financing and American blessing for the creation of a theocratic state. They also unwittingly created Al Qaeda. To make such a mistake once may be denounced as irresponsible, but to now make the same mistake again is simply criminal. If this is really about American security and a fight against Al Qaeda then this is the worst tactic imaginable and it is all down to the failure to properly plan Phase IV of the war. Good idea; dreadful execution.
The third way in which it is counterproductive and worrying is in its flaunting of international law. An argument might be made that there was Security Council authorization for the war – I’m not sure I’m convinced but nevertheless there is an argument that can be made. However the main area of concern is with the flaunting of the well established laws of war, human rights law and jus cogens norms (i.e. rules that may never be excepted regardless of the situations). If America is trying to instill the Rule of Law everywhere how can it behave in a manner that suggests law is applicable to all except the most powerful – that is the very antithesis of the Rule of Law. It undermines international law. America may feel it doesn’t need international legal regulation at the moment in this area but it does need it in trade and so forth. If it consistently flaunts international law how can it expect other states to respect it in relation to them? The international community is essentially anarchic and the loose institutions and legal regulations we have are the only semblance of order within that system. They are vital. America can not insist on compliance with laws that it consistently excuses itself from.
Essentially Mark appears to be bemused that someone who belongs to what he describes as “the globally persecuted gay minority” could be opposed to the “war on Islamism” as he describes it. Let me say categorically that I am not opposed to policies that try to minimise religious fundamentalism and release us all from what I feel is one of the most destructive forces in history. What I am opposed to on this front at least is the presentation of some kind of notion that Islam is the only religion plagued by fundamentalism. It’s quite simply not. The rise in fundamentalist evangelism in the United States is equally worrying to me and is equally dangerous for fellow members of the LGBT community, for women, for immigrants and for people of other faiths. People who blow up abortion clinics, for example, can not to my mind be said to have a moral superiority over people who blow up pizza parlours in Jerusalem. The scale of the violence is incidental to the reality of fundamentalist violence within religions. As long as the American establishment courts religious fundamentalism while at the same time denouncing it elsewhere I find the moral argument for a ‘war against Islamism’ hypocritical, worrying and unconvincing.
The second point I wanted to make is, as I said in the comments to the original post, I truly believe that most neocons are fundamentally good people. I have heard George Bush, Richard Perle and co. speak about the project of spreading liberal constitutionalism and the notion of freedom and I can’t help but believe that fundamentally they support the idea of freedom and liberty everywhere. The fact that the spread of freedom, liberty and constitutional democracy is good for America is to some extent irrelevant to me; the ideal is also good for individuals and communities and that’s what matters from my perspective. I also agree with the notion that the world’s only superpower has a responsibility both to itself and to the international community. If a country has the capacity to step in and help people to liberate themselves then I believe they should do so.
HOWEVER America does it badly. That’s the problem. America is practicing exceptionalism by saying that they will liberate people in country X but not step in to help end genocide in country Y. If you are going to undertake a project such as this then you have to do so consistently and with a clear decision making structure that is transparent and accountable, otherwise your project is both counterproductive and open to criticism of ulterior motives.
In terms of counterproductivity the argument should be clear. By practicing exceptionalism America ensures that countries who are strategically important for them can essentially continue to act as they wish towards their people with no risk of American action against them. Take for example Pakistan which is a vital ally in the ‘War Against Terror’ – America was quite prepared to lend legitimacy to the Musharaff regime which is essentially perpetual martial law despite the fact that he took control in a military coup, is completely controlled by the military, gives the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency free reign to spread terror and insecurity in the country and, in turn, allows intimate ideological relationships between the ISI and the mullahs to flourish. America however invites him to the White House, gives him a unending river of ‘aid’ money and calls him a reformer and modernist in return for the freedom to capture, detain and interrogate suspects in the Tribal Areas where Pakistani law has no jurisdiction. They develop ghost detention camps in those same areas and are happy for Pakistani officials to do the dirty work for them. How can America claim that this is a war for freedom and liberty and democracy when they behave in this manner? How can you criticize people who criticize the policy?
America needs people like me to support them – people who believe that the ideal of speaking constitutional liberalism and freeing people from the yoke of oppression are laudable aims and America’s responsibility – but they isolate us by acting in this manner. America has lost all good will in the vast majority of the human rights community.
The second way in which it is counterproductive is in the creation of blowback. When America armed resistance against the Soviets in Afghanistan they unwittingly created a band of jihadists with sophisticated training, good financing and American blessing for the creation of a theocratic state. They also unwittingly created Al Qaeda. To make such a mistake once may be denounced as irresponsible, but to now make the same mistake again is simply criminal. If this is really about American security and a fight against Al Qaeda then this is the worst tactic imaginable and it is all down to the failure to properly plan Phase IV of the war. Good idea; dreadful execution.
The third way in which it is counterproductive and worrying is in its flaunting of international law. An argument might be made that there was Security Council authorization for the war – I’m not sure I’m convinced but nevertheless there is an argument that can be made. However the main area of concern is with the flaunting of the well established laws of war, human rights law and jus cogens norms (i.e. rules that may never be excepted regardless of the situations). If America is trying to instill the Rule of Law everywhere how can it behave in a manner that suggests law is applicable to all except the most powerful – that is the very antithesis of the Rule of Law. It undermines international law. America may feel it doesn’t need international legal regulation at the moment in this area but it does need it in trade and so forth. If it consistently flaunts international law how can it expect other states to respect it in relation to them? The international community is essentially anarchic and the loose institutions and legal regulations we have are the only semblance of order within that system. They are vital. America can not insist on compliance with laws that it consistently excuses itself from.
I see you are back with a vengeance...
Thank you ever so much for that lecture. You have saved me oodles of research and thinking time.
One small point, you say "If a country has the capacity to step in and help people to liberate themselves then I believe they should do so..."
This reminds me of the Commintern, the international communist movement, the Leninist view...
If the Soviet Union has the capacity to step in and help the working classes of capitalist countries liberate themselves from the yoke of exploitation, I believe they should do so Comrade.
One more small question: why do you believe the neo-cons are good people? Where is the evidence for this? What are your criteria for being a good person?
I find it easier to assert that everyone is a good person, but some people's behaviour is not acceptable to me.
Posted by
Omaniblog |
2:46 PM
why do you believe the neo-cons are good people?
Where is your evidence they are not?
Nice piece Fiona.
My view on the war on terror right thing bolloxied up.
Posted by
Simon |
3:05 PM
omani - interesting analogy with the communist view and one I need to think about a bit more I think.
As for good people - I've read a lot of stuff written from various political perspectives on the war on terror and foreign policy generally and I believe that 'good people' are those who want individuals to have the freedom to flourish whereas 'bad' people are not. Now people will have different perspectives on human flourishing - typically western perspectives are individualistic for example versus the communitarian 'eastern' perspectives. I'm not making a judgment call on which of those perspectives is better or worse.
Posted by
F |
3:32 PM
Hi Fiona
I reply at:
http://markhumphrys.com/fdelondras.html
Regards
Mark
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:14 PM
Interesting response Mark - I'll respond to it when I get some time. It may be early next week at this stage but I'll do my best to get to it before then
Posted by
F |
2:23 PM
I think that most neocons are good people, seeing as they care for the rest of the world more than old-fashioned Republicans do, but they make some bad mistakes in both theory and practice. Mark Humphrys' website seems to be a good example, even though he is not empowered in any way.
First off, I'd like to say that I do think that Mr.Humphrys is a reasonable man who cares about the world. If he reflects a little, I think that he should notice some serious weaknesses in his position. One is that he seems very confused about whether he believes in majority rule or not. In some parts, he uses opinion polls by Afghans and Iraqis to justify the war; in other parts, he uses opinion polls that show illiberal opinions amongst Muslims to suggest that they should not be allowed an unconstrained democracy, but rather one with safeguards for liberties.
Also, he talks back about how many people have been killed by Christianity and how many have been killed by Communism, but then he is willing to kill for liberal democracy. He thinks that liberal democracy is the best form of government. Does he not realise that the Crusaders thought that Christianity was the best form of government? Does he not realise that Mao and Pol Pot thought that Communism was the best form of government? Humphrys hates postmodernism, but there's a lesson that he should learn from it: liberal democracy seems great and right for us NOW, but people in the future could well look back on it in the same way that we now look back on Communism and Chrisitanity. We don't know that liberal democracy is the best form of government for all time. It seems to work alright, but then Christianity seemed to be working alright back then. Killing for democracy is killing for a historically contingent ideal!
He may ask, "What could be better than liberal democracy?" or "What could be better than science?" To be honest, I can't answer - but then, Aristotle couldn't believe that he would ever be proved wrong on anything and look what happened there. Kuhn's work has shown how the language of science has changed over time with each new epoch seeing the last as silly and irrational. One day, people may look back on us lack that. You should think about that before you go out and have wars.
One last thing: to call Stalin a Communist is completely unfair. He didn't have any principles at all and for Humphrys to call him a Communist is ignoring the fact that he violated Communist principles even more that George Bush does.
Posted by
Edward Aveyard |
12:56 PM
I know there's a spelling mistake here, by the way; it should have been "One day, people may look back on us LIKE that."
Posted by
Edward Aveyard |
12:57 PM
just read humphrys' comment and his whole history is a bit warped. does he not realise that the appeasement man neville chamberlain was a CONSERVATIVE and a right-winger. the labour party was always for w.w.2 and he makes it out like the war victory was all thanks to the right.
also he paints w.w.2 as a war for democracy. bollocks! we went to war to defend an anti-Semitic dictatorship in poland. it was nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with stopping germany getting in on our power. it's easy to look back now and say that we fought against the holocaust, but that's not why we went to war. the holocaust didn't start until 1942 and we didn't find out about it until 1945. by 1939, germany was just your usual anti-semitic state and it wasn't even as extreme as spain, poland at that point
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:26 PM
Interesting post above. I'm also not sure how Saddam Hussein manages to count as an "Islamist". There's an awful lot of bad stuff that you can say about Mr. Hussein, but he wasn't too religious. The new Iraq could be more Islam-focused than the old.
Posted by
Edward Aveyard [back again] |
10:32 AM
I'll reply to some of the other points when I get time, but just one point:
Of course Stalin was a communist. He was no different to Lenin, Trotsky, Mao or Pol Pot. Read "The Black Book of Communism" if you think somehow Stalin was uniquely bad.
Posted by
Mark Humphrys |
11:31 AM
Kuhn's work has shown how the language of science has changed over time with each new epoch seeing the last as silly and irrational.
Kuhn shows no such thing. There is no sense in which modern physicists regard Newton's work in physics as "silly and irrational". On the contrary, they are usually in awe of him, despite the fact we've improved greatly on Newton's first approximation. We are now on the n-th approximation, with the (n+1)-th coming later.
Likewise, there is no sense in which modern biologists regard Darwin's work as "silly and irrational". On the contrary, they are usually in awe of him.
Posted by
Mark Humphrys |
11:44 AM
does he not realise that the appeasement man neville chamberlain was a CONSERVATIVE and a right-winger. the labour party was always for w.w.2 and he makes it out like the war victory was all thanks to the right.
I never said that. Where did I say that?
Posted by
Mark Humphrys |
11:45 AM
by 1939, germany was just your usual anti-semitic state and it wasn't even as extreme as spain, poland at that point
Did Poland have concentration camps in 1939?
Was Poland aggressively expanding its territory in 1939?
Did Poland have special laws for the Jews in 1939?
Posted by
Mark Humphrys |
11:50 AM
I stil haven't even gotten around to starting my response!! It's my task for on the plane to Washington on Tuesday morning so expect something wednesday!!
Posted by
F |
5:38 PM
im the one who posted about neville chamberlain. this is @humphrys
1 the bit about chamberlain you seemed to be implying on your main page for politics, where you say that the right was all for w.w.2 and the left was only reservedly for it. that is just not true
2 germany did not have any concentration camps by 1939. they only started the holocaust in 1942; i said that already
3 yes, poland did have special laws for jews and it was persecuting them like fuck! worse than hitler at that time
4 poland had invaded a bit of one of the baltic states in the 1920. this is, admittedly, my weakest point. however, your point was a bit off topic. i had said that the reason why we went to war with germany was because it was getting too much power and so your bit about them expanding territory fits in with me. it's you who has the idea that w.w.2 was all for democracy. NO. poland was a dictatorship and we went to defend it.
i think that fdelondras is going to have 30-odd posts on this page, before she gets round to replying
Posted by
Anonymous |
6:18 PM
Hi, Mr. Humphrys. Thanks for your efficient reply. The scientific analogy was admittedly not very well expressed. What I was just getting at was that people in their own time always tend to think that their way of seeing things must be near a complete world-vision. Before Einstein came around, how many people would have thought that Newton would be proved wrong? Using the words "silly and irrational" was a bit much, but I was trying to convey the arrogance of any generation about its way of explaining things. I'm not doing very well neither, so I'll just put down a Wiki-link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift
I shall attempt to explain my view of Stalin. First thing to say is that it just seems a bit bellow-the-belt to tar Marxists with the Stalin brush, as there is no-one who is pro-Stalin. Saying that Marxists are all Stalin-lovers is a bit like saying that neo-cons are all racist, war-loving, selfish twats.
Next point: this is unverifiable, I know - but I think that Lenin, Mao and Pol Pot really did believe that Communism was the ideal form of government and that they were killing today to make way for a better tomorrow. Stalin, on the other hand, I believe had no morals or any concern for other people.
Let's look at Stalin's policies:
- he paid people by how numerically productive they were
- there does not seem to have been any concern for equality. His top men earned a lot of money [as long as they didn't get killed]
- he introduced fees for education. Milton Friedman would have been proud.
- his propoganda featured women in traditional roles and he banned abortion
- he reintroduced all the traditional army practices that Lenin had abolished, like ranks, saluting, etc.
- he was about as unconcerned with other countries as it is possible to be
- he was racist, as shown in expelling all the Poles and Finns from U.S.S.R. and giving the Jews a hard time, after the war
These things just don't seem like the policies of someone who was a believer in Marxism or any form of Communism. They seem like the complete opposite.
You may think that I'm wrong to focus on things like this, instead of all of the people that Stalin killed. What I was trying to say is that those who really do believe in Communism - as I think that Lenin and Mao really did - believed just the same thing that you did: that a few deaths today will all work out for the liberation of the people before too long. So I was drawing an analogy between neo-conservatives and Lenin, Mao, etc. but not one between neo-cons and Stalin. Stalin was just a sadist; neo-cons are people who want to do good, but forget that they're killing for a historically contingent idea - just like Communism was.
You can't blame people for thinking that Communism seemed alright at some points in history. When you look back on the misery of the working-classes, you can understand that some intellectuals thought that there must be something better to achieve and that the struggle of Communists was a just one. We forget that nowadays. Someday in the future, people may look back on neo-cons in the same way.
Posted by
Edward Aveyard |
6:54 PM
neo-cons are people who want to do good, but forget that they're killing for a historically contingent idea - just like Communism was.
Hi Edward
Look, I do admire your ultra scepticism in saying how do we know any cause is worth going to war for? You're a lot more sceptical than me. I just take it for granted that violence against, say, Kim Jong Il, or the Sudan regime, is justified. I take it for granted that freedom of religion and freedom of speech are worth struggling for, by violence if necessary. I have nothing to say to anyone who thinks these things may someday in the future be seen as not worth fighting for.
I just wonder how far you take this ultra scepticism, though. Would you have been neutral in WW2, for example? After all, the Allies in WW2 were killing (by the million) for a historically contingent idea, just like Communism.
Posted by
Mark Humphrys |
9:35 AM
you say that the right was all for w.w.2 and the left was only reservedly for it. that is just not true
I don't remember saying that. What's the exact quote?
Posted by
Mark Humphrys |
9:40 AM
germany did not have any concentration camps by 1939
Wikipedia lists:
"Dachau (1933), Sachsenhausen (1936), Buchenwald (1937), Flossenbürg (1938), Mauthausen (1938) and Ravensbrück (1939)."
Posted by
Mark Humphrys |
9:44 AM
yes, poland did have special laws for jews and it was persecuting them like fuck! worse than hitler at that time
References? Stats for how many Jews killed by Poland pre-war?
I'm not here to defend Poland, only to say that there's no way it was worse than Germany, as you claim.
it's easy to look back now and say that we fought against the holocaust, but that's not why we went to war.
I agree. I never said otherwise. If I did, quote me.
the holocaust didn't start until 1942 and we didn't find out about it until 1945.
Not true. The Holocaust started in earnest in 1941. It was publicised in the world's media from 1942 onwards.
You are correct that the Allies were not at war to save the Jews, but I never said they were. What point are you trying to make? That the neutrals were morally superior to the Allies? Would you have been neutral?
Posted by
Mark Humphrys |
9:56 AM
it's you who has the idea that w.w.2 was all for democracy
Yes, there were other motivations. Defence of Empire. Stopping German power.
But are you seriously telling me that victory for the Allies was not going to be a massive, historical, world-defining victory for the survival of democracy?
Imagine if the Allies had lost. Democracy in Europe could have been extinguished for centuries.
I don't know who you are Anonymous, but you sound like the ghost of Eamon de Valera. Whining, trivial complaints about the brave Allies engaged in this life-and-death struggle that you refuse to support them in.
Posted by
Mark Humphrys |
10:05 AM
Hello, Mark. Thanks again for the response.
"Skepticism" is an interesting word. I can see why you call it that, although I was really just trying to draw lessons from history. The thing that Christianity, Communism, etc. seems to teach me is that if you sacrifice lives to an ideology, you run the risk of these lives being sacrificed for something that history shall prove wrong.
However, it is true that bloodshed today can seem to stop further bloodshed tomorrow. Revolutions in many countries seem to prove that. It's just that war is so unpredictable and they rarely go just as planned.
I think that the war in Afghanistan was perfectly fine. At the time of the Iraq War, I opposed it, but, now that we're in, I don't see what good withdrawal would do. The LibDems were pretty silly at the last election about that. I think that I would have been prepared to fight Germany over their union with Austria or, at least, over Czechoslovakia. I must admit that I agree with anonymous that W.W.2 was primarily for self-defence.
I don't think that you'll like me quoting Jesus. He once said, "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man." My attitude is a bit like that. Democracy seems to work very well for us, but we should never forget that it is not an ends in itself; it is a means to the ends of reducing pain.
I suppose the trouble with using history in the way that I, you and anonymous has been doing is that we can never know "what if..." You just have to do the best that you can. And I think that most people do do the best that they can. I suppose that if I guess that the Iraq War would have increased cruelty and you guessed that it would have decreased it, there was no way of arbitrating between us.
So to conclude: I do hope that all goes well in Iraq and that it becomes more peaceful. I just don't like the more aggressive neo-con plans like going in for Iran. We're in two countries already. More than that, if we've still got troops in the Balkans [have we?]. Britain still have troops in Sierra Leone. I do think that we should cool the neo-con flames for a good while and concentrate on serving the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. If that works alright, people around the world may even become a bit more sympathetic towards America!
Posted by
Edward Aveyard |
4:02 PM
Another point to raise is that I think that America should take account of world opinion. I know that you don't care for that much, but, if it ignores other nations, then that's bound to antagonise and that shall spring more anti-Americans and more chance of a blood-stained future.
Posted by
Edward Aveyard |
8:27 PM
wtf is this, mark? just because i don't agree with u doesn't make me some enemy of western civilisation. all i've been doing is commenting on ur history.
First off, here is the quote where you seem to suggest that w.w.2 was won all thanks to the right:
The left (sympathisers with the enemy in both World War 3 and World War 4, only admirable in World War 2)
The church (sympathisers with the enemy in both World War 2 and World War 4, only admirable in World War 3)
The right (defended democracy in all three wars)
ur site has the "only" in italics. I interpreted this to mean that, in w.w.2, they weren't something to be proud of, but just admirable. perhaps u meant that w.w.2 was the only war in which the left can take pride?
i couldn't find any links from the bit of your site that you highlighted to say that the media publicised it throughout the world. maybe there were suspicions, but it is quite well known that soldiers who liberating europe in 1945 were shocked at the extent of the killing that they saw.
im quite proud that ive made it onto your website. i suppose that someone who was "for the jews" would have supported the allies, but then someone who was just "against communism" might have opposed the allies.
what would have happened if we hadnt gone to war in 1939? my bet is that hitler would have tried to invade russia anyway and one of the two dictatorships would have fallen, we would have saved a lot of our own lives. i expect that u would have liked to have got rid of both of the dictatorships, but that didnt happen anyway. w.w.2 gave half of europe to stalin; they planned it on a napkin.
i was reminded of this site by a discussion with a polish friend today. he said that a lot of the worst atrocities by "german" soldier in the holocaust were by poles who had joined with their new occupiers.
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:29 PM
wtf is this, mark? just because i don't agree with u doesn't make me some enemy of western civilisation. all i've been doing is commenting on ur history.
No, you've been commenting on two points that I never made, namely:
1. The Allies went to war to save the Jews.
2. WW2 was won thanks to the right, not the left.
I never made either of these points, and this is getting boring.
Posted by
Mark Humphrys |
10:58 AM
im quite proud that ive made it onto your website
You mean the Addendum at the bottom of this page?
OK why don't you answer the question: Was neutrality in WW2 morally superior to supporting the allies?
Posted by
Mark Humphrys |
11:02 AM
i couldn't find any links from the bit of your site that you highlighted to say that the media publicised it throughout the world
Read "Hitler's Pope" by John Cornwell. The mass killing of Jews on the Eastern front was publicised in the world's media from 1942 on. That's not the only place I've read this.
As with Sudan or North Korea today, many people read it but just weren't that interested.
As I say: "The Nazis could not hide such a large-scale crime, and indeed it was not hidden. The Holocaust was known to Rome by March 1942 and it was blared across the world's media as early as June 1942. By that summer it was known by the world that Hitler had killed at least 1 million Jews, and planned to kill all the Jews of Europe."
This idea that nobody knew anything until 1945 is a post-war invention, made for obvious reasons by people after the fact to justify their inaction.
Posted by
Mark Humphrys |
11:10 AM
ur right; this is getting boring and, as you quite clearly don't believe either of those two points that you've highlighted, might as well stop.
u seem to define "moral" in a circular fashion. being a skeptic and an atheist, the only "moral" you have left is what is liberal and democratic, so it's circular that you call "moral" whatever the liberal democracies do. some other bits of ur site r like that: u measure the happiness of countries by western values like output and surprise surprise the west wins! how about measuring it by how religious a country is or whether the family honour is upheld? many cultures would find it abhorrent to put output before family, religion, etc.
i stand by the bit i said before about what would have happened if we hadnt gone to war. when i say "we", im british.
forgot to address ur concentration camp bit before. before the holocaust started, they must've just been for commies, trade unionists, etc. calling them "concentration camps" sounds a bit dramatic. most countries in europe were imprisoning and executing communists at the time
Posted by
Anonymous |
7:18 PM
fdelondras is going to have to remind herself where this all started, by the time that she gets to this comment. maybe she can get away with not replying now, after humphrys got all worn out
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:08 PM