I am interested, then, Tosh.
If the object of war is NOT to kill/maim/immobilize as many of the enemy as possible, what on earth IS the purpose of war?
War involves guns, grenades, bombs, poison gas, tanks, artillery and other weapons of destruction. Are not these weapons designed to kill?
Sure, a noble outlook is to have a "bloodless war" where the "enemy" simply gives up without a fight. But in reality...in practical terms..isn't a WAR where people get blown up and destroyed?
I don't think the "rules of war" are ridiculous. I think having such rules makes war a viable option. It makes war acceptable. If there are "rules" then it must be a kind of game, right? And no, I'm not being facetious. Many people speak of the "glory of war."
War has no glory. It has only blood.
90-year-old SS hitman given life
The Greeks said, "War is the father of all." Those were the same guys who chucked babies off the walls of Troy.
As JewelSong said, having "rules" for war makes it seem, somehow, less horrible. Like, in the Great War you could be shot if you were found guilty of having shot a man while you bayoneted him. Or vice versa.
If you are attacked, then of course you must defend yourself. But wars are seldom as simple as "you attacked me therefore I am fighting back".
If you are "losing" the rules are ignored. Victory at any cost. Always.
If you "win" you get to write how it all went.
As JewelSong said, having "rules" for war makes it seem, somehow, less horrible. Like, in the Great War you could be shot if you were found guilty of having shot a man while you bayoneted him. Or vice versa.
If you are attacked, then of course you must defend yourself. But wars are seldom as simple as "you attacked me therefore I am fighting back".
If you are "losing" the rules are ignored. Victory at any cost. Always.
If you "win" you get to write how it all went.
Dig deeper.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46116
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
I (obviously) also agree with Tosh. Thank you for speaking up, Tosh... I was beginning to believe I was alone in my viewpoint!
"What do you fear, lady?" Aragorn asked.
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
"A cage," Éowyn said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Nope. Rules of war matter. If everything were allowable in war, mustard gas and other horrors would still be used in combat. And if every action in war were a crime and could be prosecuted as one, there would be no reason not to use every weapon available including nerve gas, biowarfare, and nukes or dirty bombs. Rules imperfectly followed are still important.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
-
ToshoftheWuffingas
- Posts: 1579
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:34 pm
War is famously defined as the furtherance of foreign policy by other means. The purpose of war is not to kill as many of the enemy as possible. That frankly falls into the realm of genocide. The purpose is to gain your objectives using force; if necessary. The less force used the better providing one gains success. Moreover coming from a European background, one has to live with your enemy afterwards. There is advantage in using mutual restraint. Otherwise all enemy prisoners would be killed out of hand as a drain on resources and a potential danger.
Our civilians were killed by enemy bombing during WW2 but it was not seen as a war crime then or now. It was accepted as how war was conducted. On the other hand during the retreat to Dunkirk a company of British soldiers were captured and herded into a barn and machine gunned and set alight. That was seen as a war crime even though the casualties were far fewer.
There may be confusion between bringing maximum force upon a certain enemy point and using mass destruction. The usual end game sought is surrender or negotiation from strength, not the enemy's destruction.
The confusion about this is what bedevils conflicts such as Vietnam and Afghanistan. Afghanistan cannot be 'won'. You cannot kill every adult male in Helmand and elsewhere. The purpose is to leave a stable government that is not actively hostile and a safe haven for Islamist terror. That is all.
Our civilians were killed by enemy bombing during WW2 but it was not seen as a war crime then or now. It was accepted as how war was conducted. On the other hand during the retreat to Dunkirk a company of British soldiers were captured and herded into a barn and machine gunned and set alight. That was seen as a war crime even though the casualties were far fewer.
There may be confusion between bringing maximum force upon a certain enemy point and using mass destruction. The usual end game sought is surrender or negotiation from strength, not the enemy's destruction.
The confusion about this is what bedevils conflicts such as Vietnam and Afghanistan. Afghanistan cannot be 'won'. You cannot kill every adult male in Helmand and elsewhere. The purpose is to leave a stable government that is not actively hostile and a safe haven for Islamist terror. That is all.
<a><img></a>
-
JewelSong
- Just Keep Singin'
- Posts: 4660
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:35 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
War is stupid, then.
If war were not an option...if every nation agreed that it was out of the question to "go to war" perhaps mankind would think of a better way to solve differences than sending children barely out of their teens into battle with clear training and instructions on how to slaughter the other side's children.
I fear we will never evolve.
Who decides what is allowable? It seems to me that if warring nations can get together and AGREE on what weapons and methods are "allowed" in a war (where people are, you know, KILLED!) they should be able to agree not to fight in the first place. This is the part I find ridiculous. The mentality that "Well, we HAVE to have a war, but let's at least agree on what ways we are allowed to butcher each other! THAT will make us more civilized! Right-o!"If everything were allowable in war...
If war were not an option...if every nation agreed that it was out of the question to "go to war" perhaps mankind would think of a better way to solve differences than sending children barely out of their teens into battle with clear training and instructions on how to slaughter the other side's children.
I fear we will never evolve.
"Live! Live! Live! Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!" - Auntie Mame
Good post, JewelSong.
If you are killed by mustard gas or in an atomic blast or by a bayonet, you are still dead. One way doesn't make you deader than another. For all the present day horror of atomic bombs, after they were used in war they were tested on land and in the atmosphere for decades. Thousands and thousands of human beings were poisoned by the tests. When I was a very small child, no one had Strontium 90 in their bones. Everyone has, now.
The bombs would have been used - they may still be used. If nothing else "works". I don't believe for ONE second that they wouldn't be if someone thought they were necessary. Never mind the issue of a terrorist group making a bomb.
Men now live with wounds that would have killed them only a decade ago. This is seen as a good thing.
The "rules" of war are ignored every day on this planet. The "civilized" western nations are not the only people who wage war.
And it was our precious civilization that bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our "western" civilization killed more people in the 20th century than can ever be counted.
These are not "rogue" actions. These are what the men do, who love war.
If you are killed by mustard gas or in an atomic blast or by a bayonet, you are still dead. One way doesn't make you deader than another. For all the present day horror of atomic bombs, after they were used in war they were tested on land and in the atmosphere for decades. Thousands and thousands of human beings were poisoned by the tests. When I was a very small child, no one had Strontium 90 in their bones. Everyone has, now.
The bombs would have been used - they may still be used. If nothing else "works". I don't believe for ONE second that they wouldn't be if someone thought they were necessary. Never mind the issue of a terrorist group making a bomb.
Men now live with wounds that would have killed them only a decade ago. This is seen as a good thing.
The "rules" of war are ignored every day on this planet. The "civilized" western nations are not the only people who wage war.
And it was our precious civilization that bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Our "western" civilization killed more people in the 20th century than can ever be counted.
These are not "rogue" actions. These are what the men do, who love war.
Dig deeper.
-
JewelSong
- Just Keep Singin'
- Posts: 4660
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:35 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
There were at least two very good original Star Trek stories about war being unavoidable. One was called "A Taste of Armageddon" about a planet that had been at war for over 500 years. It had gotten to be a very messy business, but they could see no other way - so they fought their wars with computers. If you were "hit" you had 24 hours to report to a disintegration chamber.
Of course, Kirk et al are caught in the middle and he and Spock blow up the computer, leaving the planet to face the horrors of war once again. Or - to make peace.
The other is called "Errand of Mercy." This involves the Klingons and a peaceful, seemingly benign race called the Organians. Klingons and Humans are going at the fighting, hot and heavy, when the Organians reveal that they are actually a very advanced species and put a stop to the war. There is this notable exchange: (Ayelborne is the head Organian)
AYELBORNE: As I stand here, I also stand upon the home planet of the Klingon Empire, and the home planet of your Federation, Captain. I'm putting a stop to this insane war.
KOR: You're what?
KIRK: You're talking nonsense.
AYELBORNE: It is being done.
KIRK: You can't just stop the fleet. What gives you the right?
KOR: You can't interfere. What happens in space is not your business.
AYELBORNE: Unless both sides agree to an immediate cessation of hostilities, all your armed forces, wherever they may be, will be immediately immobilised.
KIRK: We have legitimate grievances against the Klingons. They've invaded our territory, killed our citizens. They're openly aggressive. They've boasted that they'll take over half the galaxy.
KOR: Why not? We're the stronger! You've tried to hem us in, cut off vital supplies, strangle our trade! You've been asking for war!
KIRK: You're the ones who issued the ultimatum to withdraw from the disputed areas!
KOR: They are not disputed! They're clearly ours. And now you step in with some kind of trick.
AYELBORNE: It is no trick, Commander. We have simply put an end to your war. All your military forces, wherever they are, are now completely paralysed.
CLAYMARE: We find interference in other people's affairs most disgusting, but you gentlemen have given us no choice.
KIRK: You should be the first to be on our side. Two hundred hostages killed.
AYELBORNE: No one has been killed, Captain.
CLAYMARE: No one has died here in uncounted thousands of years.
KOR: You are liars. You are meddling in things that are none of your business.
KIRK: Even if you have some power that we don't understand, you have no right to dictate to our Federation
KOR: Or our Empire!
KIRK: How to handle their interstellar relations! We have the right
AYELBORNE: To wage war, Captain? To kill millions of innocent people? To destroy life on a planetary scale? Is that what you're defending?
KIRK: Well, no one wants war. But there are proper channels. People have a right to handle their own affairs. Eventually, we would have
AYELBORNE: Oh, eventually you will have peace, but only after millions of people have died. It is true that in the future, you and the Klingons will become fast friends. You will work together.
KOR: Never!
CLAYMARE: Your emotions are most discordant. We do not wish to seem inhospitable, but gentlemen, you must leave.
AYELBORNE: Yes, please leave us. The mere presence of beings like yourselves is intensely painful to us.
KIRK: What do you mean, beings like yourselves?
AYELBORNE: Millions of years ago, Captain, we were humanoid like yourselves, but we have developed beyond the need of physical bodies. That of us which you see is mere appearance for your sake.
KOR: Captain, it's a trick. We can handle them. I have an army.
(Kirk holds him back as Ayelborne and Claymare transform into pulsating lights, too bright to look at. Then they disappear.)
SPOCK: Fascinating. Pure energy. Pure thought. Totally incorporeal. Not life as we know it at all.
KIRK: But what about this planet? The fields, the buildings, this citadel?
SPOCK: Conventionalisations, I should say. Useless to the Organians. Created so that visitors such as ourselves, could have conventional points of reference.
KOR: But is all of this possible?
SPOCK: We have seen it with our own eyes. I should say the Organians are as far above us on the evolutionary scale as we are above the amoeba.
KIRK: Well, Commander, I guess that takes care of the war. Obviously, the Organians aren't going to let us fight.
KOR: A shame, Captain. It would have been glorious.
I know it seems silly to quote a 40+ year old TV show in a serious discussion. But you know what? There was a lot of wisdom in some of those silly shows.
Of course, Kirk et al are caught in the middle and he and Spock blow up the computer, leaving the planet to face the horrors of war once again. Or - to make peace.
The other is called "Errand of Mercy." This involves the Klingons and a peaceful, seemingly benign race called the Organians. Klingons and Humans are going at the fighting, hot and heavy, when the Organians reveal that they are actually a very advanced species and put a stop to the war. There is this notable exchange: (Ayelborne is the head Organian)
AYELBORNE: As I stand here, I also stand upon the home planet of the Klingon Empire, and the home planet of your Federation, Captain. I'm putting a stop to this insane war.
KOR: You're what?
KIRK: You're talking nonsense.
AYELBORNE: It is being done.
KIRK: You can't just stop the fleet. What gives you the right?
KOR: You can't interfere. What happens in space is not your business.
AYELBORNE: Unless both sides agree to an immediate cessation of hostilities, all your armed forces, wherever they may be, will be immediately immobilised.
KIRK: We have legitimate grievances against the Klingons. They've invaded our territory, killed our citizens. They're openly aggressive. They've boasted that they'll take over half the galaxy.
KOR: Why not? We're the stronger! You've tried to hem us in, cut off vital supplies, strangle our trade! You've been asking for war!
KIRK: You're the ones who issued the ultimatum to withdraw from the disputed areas!
KOR: They are not disputed! They're clearly ours. And now you step in with some kind of trick.
AYELBORNE: It is no trick, Commander. We have simply put an end to your war. All your military forces, wherever they are, are now completely paralysed.
CLAYMARE: We find interference in other people's affairs most disgusting, but you gentlemen have given us no choice.
KIRK: You should be the first to be on our side. Two hundred hostages killed.
AYELBORNE: No one has been killed, Captain.
CLAYMARE: No one has died here in uncounted thousands of years.
KOR: You are liars. You are meddling in things that are none of your business.
KIRK: Even if you have some power that we don't understand, you have no right to dictate to our Federation
KOR: Or our Empire!
KIRK: How to handle their interstellar relations! We have the right
AYELBORNE: To wage war, Captain? To kill millions of innocent people? To destroy life on a planetary scale? Is that what you're defending?
KIRK: Well, no one wants war. But there are proper channels. People have a right to handle their own affairs. Eventually, we would have
AYELBORNE: Oh, eventually you will have peace, but only after millions of people have died. It is true that in the future, you and the Klingons will become fast friends. You will work together.
KOR: Never!
CLAYMARE: Your emotions are most discordant. We do not wish to seem inhospitable, but gentlemen, you must leave.
AYELBORNE: Yes, please leave us. The mere presence of beings like yourselves is intensely painful to us.
KIRK: What do you mean, beings like yourselves?
AYELBORNE: Millions of years ago, Captain, we were humanoid like yourselves, but we have developed beyond the need of physical bodies. That of us which you see is mere appearance for your sake.
KOR: Captain, it's a trick. We can handle them. I have an army.
(Kirk holds him back as Ayelborne and Claymare transform into pulsating lights, too bright to look at. Then they disappear.)
SPOCK: Fascinating. Pure energy. Pure thought. Totally incorporeal. Not life as we know it at all.
KIRK: But what about this planet? The fields, the buildings, this citadel?
SPOCK: Conventionalisations, I should say. Useless to the Organians. Created so that visitors such as ourselves, could have conventional points of reference.
KOR: But is all of this possible?
SPOCK: We have seen it with our own eyes. I should say the Organians are as far above us on the evolutionary scale as we are above the amoeba.
KIRK: Well, Commander, I guess that takes care of the war. Obviously, the Organians aren't going to let us fight.
KOR: A shame, Captain. It would have been glorious.
I know it seems silly to quote a 40+ year old TV show in a serious discussion. But you know what? There was a lot of wisdom in some of those silly shows.
"Live! Live! Live! Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!" - Auntie Mame
That's a great quote from Star Trek, Jewel. 
War is hideous, but I do really agree with what Tosh is saying. WW2 is the reason why I am not a pacifist.
And, you know, I can't help thinking ...
-- Were the American colonists wrong to fight against the British in 1776? Without that war, you guys would not have become an independent nation.
-- Was England wrong to fight against Napoleon 200 years ago? (Hands off our country, mate.
)
And I'm not 'Godwinning' the thread because in a discussion about WW2 it's OK to talk about Hitler.
Any nation-state has the right to defend itself from the intentions of a Hitler, or a Stalin, who would happily send their tanks into a city and take it by force. Resistance to such oppressors is not wrong, IMO.
War is hideous, but I do really agree with what Tosh is saying. WW2 is the reason why I am not a pacifist.
And, you know, I can't help thinking ...
-- Were the American colonists wrong to fight against the British in 1776? Without that war, you guys would not have become an independent nation.
-- Was England wrong to fight against Napoleon 200 years ago? (Hands off our country, mate.
)Yeah, but Jewels ... people like Hitler (or Pol Pot, or Robert Mugabe) are never, ever, going to listen to reason. Such men have their own agenda, moreover they are totally convinced they are in the right. Appeasement and negotation didn't work with Hitler because he was determined to carry out his murderous racism.JewelSong wrote:Who decides what is allowable? It seems to me that if warring nations can get together and AGREE on what weapons and methods are "allowed" in a war (where people are, you know, KILLED!) they should be able to agree not to fight in the first place.
And I'm not 'Godwinning' the thread because in a discussion about WW2 it's OK to talk about Hitler.
Any nation-state has the right to defend itself from the intentions of a Hitler, or a Stalin, who would happily send their tanks into a city and take it by force. Resistance to such oppressors is not wrong, IMO.
Probably not.I fear we will never evolve.
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
No, I doubt we ever really will.
I've been reading Metaxas' biography of Bonhoeffer, and I'm learning a lot I didn't know about Hitler, WWII, etc. Of the many things that have left a deep impression on me is how absolutely, ridiculously insane and evil Hitler and many of his men were. It's truly astounding. (I knew that, but I didn't really know that till I began to read more details.) He didn't follow any rules. It's one reason some of his top men attempted to assassinate him; they were appalled at his actions, beginning with his blatant disregard for what was viewed as ethical war procedures.
I think it's tempting to say, "Oh, leave this poor 90-year old guy alone." (Look at John Demjanjuk--a case I was quite familiar with, being from Cleveland.) However, I don't think it's wrong to finally hold this man as accountable as we can as humans. If he spends his last days in jail, then so be it. At least he can say that he lived the vast majority of his days in freedom and only spent, at most, a few years imprisoned. I think that's more than enough mercy shown to him.
I've been reading Metaxas' biography of Bonhoeffer, and I'm learning a lot I didn't know about Hitler, WWII, etc. Of the many things that have left a deep impression on me is how absolutely, ridiculously insane and evil Hitler and many of his men were. It's truly astounding. (I knew that, but I didn't really know that till I began to read more details.) He didn't follow any rules. It's one reason some of his top men attempted to assassinate him; they were appalled at his actions, beginning with his blatant disregard for what was viewed as ethical war procedures.
I think it's tempting to say, "Oh, leave this poor 90-year old guy alone." (Look at John Demjanjuk--a case I was quite familiar with, being from Cleveland.) However, I don't think it's wrong to finally hold this man as accountable as we can as humans. If he spends his last days in jail, then so be it. At least he can say that he lived the vast majority of his days in freedom and only spent, at most, a few years imprisoned. I think that's more than enough mercy shown to him.
-
JewelSong
- Just Keep Singin'
- Posts: 4660
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:35 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
Oh, I totally agree. His advanced age does not negate his evil acts...and as far as I can see, he made no attempt to atone for what he did during his long life.Lalaith wrote:However, I don't think it's wrong to finally hold this man as accountable as we can as humans. If he spends his last days in jail, then so be it. .
It's just...well, frustrating to me. The whole "making war" thing. The whole idea that we NEED to make war. It makes me so sad...and sometimes despairing.
In the days to come
the mountain of the LORD’s house
will be the highest of the mountains.
It will be lifted above the hills;
peoples will stream to it.
Many nations will go and say,
“Come, let’s go up
to the LORD’s mountain,
to the house of Jacob’s God
so that he may teach us his ways
and we may walk in God’s paths.”
Instruction will come from Zion;
the LORD’s word from Jerusalem.
God will judge between the nations,
and settle disputes
of mighty nations.
Then they will beat
their swords into iron plows
and their spears into pruning tools.
Nation will not take up sword
against nation;
they will no longer learn
how to make war.
Come, house of Jacob,
let’s walk by the LORD’s light.
Isaiah 2: 2 - 5
"Live! Live! Live! Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!" - Auntie Mame
Lali, have you seen Downfall? It's one of my favourite war films. It's a harrowing watch: it follows Hitler and his closest colleagues in the bunker whilst outside Berlin descends into hell, and boy oh boy it's powerful. Bruno Ganz is electrifying as Hitler. Yeah, the man was batshit. 
The German actors playing Josef and Marta Goebbels also deliver very chilling performances (apparently the actors found their roles very traumatic to play, not surprisingly).
BBC2 did a brilliant documentary about the rise of the Nazis to power -- The Nazis: a warning from history -- and just how the hell that could have happened. In the late 1920s, the Nazis were a nutty little party that everybody regarded as a joke, somewhat akin to our own nasty little BNP (who couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, believe me). But a few years later, they were a serious political force.
Truly, truly scary.
Jewel, I love that passage from Isaiah. Yep, that will be a great day indeed.
But nobody has responded to my point that the only way to resist a Hitler, or a Stalin, is by ... fighting back.
I believe that very few wars have been fought for moral reasons. But a leader like Hitler who is determined to invade other countries, ride roughshod over the rights of other peoples and plan genocide ... such madmen will always exist, evolution or no evolution. And they won't be resisted by -- to quote from Aliens -- 'harsh language'. As long as people like that exist, I can't be a pacifist.
ETA:
Oh, and the 90 year old guy convicted of the war crime ... I think this was the right decision. Nobody should be exempt from justice, however much our emotions might kick into play at the sight of some frail old guy.
The German actors playing Josef and Marta Goebbels also deliver very chilling performances (apparently the actors found their roles very traumatic to play, not surprisingly). BBC2 did a brilliant documentary about the rise of the Nazis to power -- The Nazis: a warning from history -- and just how the hell that could have happened. In the late 1920s, the Nazis were a nutty little party that everybody regarded as a joke, somewhat akin to our own nasty little BNP (who couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, believe me). But a few years later, they were a serious political force.
Truly, truly scary. Jewel, I love that passage from Isaiah. Yep, that will be a great day indeed.
But nobody has responded to my point that the only way to resist a Hitler, or a Stalin, is by ... fighting back.
I believe that very few wars have been fought for moral reasons. But a leader like Hitler who is determined to invade other countries, ride roughshod over the rights of other peoples and plan genocide ... such madmen will always exist, evolution or no evolution. And they won't be resisted by -- to quote from Aliens -- 'harsh language'.
As long as people like that exist, I can't be a pacifist.ETA:
Oh, and the 90 year old guy convicted of the war crime ... I think this was the right decision. Nobody should be exempt from justice, however much our emotions might kick into play at the sight of some frail old guy.
"Frodo undertook his quest out of love - to save the world he knew from disaster at his own expense, if he could ... "
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
Letter no. 246, The Collected Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien
Avatar by goldlighticons on Live Journal
"
Earlier in the thread I said that if you are attacked, you must fight back. Of course you must. But war is very, very rarely that simple. Attacks seldom come out of nowhere.
Hitler would not have survived as long as he did if the men around him had really wanted to get rid of him. The same with the wretched creature that just died in North Korea.
It is that aspect of humanity that often makes me wonder: why do we keep allowing these brutes to rule us?
Precisely.DaveLF wrote:Evolution doesn't make pacifists, it makes survivors."
Earlier in the thread I said that if you are attacked, you must fight back. Of course you must. But war is very, very rarely that simple. Attacks seldom come out of nowhere.
Hitler would not have survived as long as he did if the men around him had really wanted to get rid of him. The same with the wretched creature that just died in North Korea.
It is that aspect of humanity that often makes me wonder: why do we keep allowing these brutes to rule us?
Dig deeper.
-
JewelSong
- Just Keep Singin'
- Posts: 4660
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 1:35 am
- Location: Boston, MA
- Contact:
It may be because when they start out, they don't seem like brutes. We think we need a "strong hand" or a "man with vision"or someone with "cajones" and the person in questions seems to fit the bill. It's only later - when the ruler has gained an enormous amount of power and influence - that we begin to realize "Hey, this guy is batsh*t insane" and by then, it is too late. Removing such a person(and often, those he has co-opted into the regime) becomes a monumental task...and many times, it requires the death of such a leader in order for the regime to fall.vison wrote:
It is that aspect of humanity that often makes me wonder: why do we keep allowing these brutes to rule us?
Not surprisingly, there's a Star Trek episode about this, as well.
It's called "Patterns of Force" and involves a Starship Captain (Cpt John Gill) who instituted a theoretical form of Hitler's National Socialism in an attempt to organize and unite the planet - believing it to be most efficient system of government ever devised. It works for a while...and then all goes horribly wrong. One of the races decides that the best way to run things is to destroy the other. Great episode.One of the final scenes:
KIRK: Gill. Gill, why did you abandon your mission? Why did you interfere with this culture?
GILL: Planet fragmented. Divided. Took lesson from Earth history.
KIRK: But why Nazi Germany? You studied history. You knew what the Nazis were.
GILL: Most efficient state Earth ever knew.
SPOCK: Quite true, Captain. That tiny country, beaten, bankrupt, defeated, rose in a few years to stand only one step away from global domination.
KIRK: But it was brutal, perverted, had to be destroyed at a terrible cost. Why that example?
SPOCK: Perhaps Gill felt that such a state, run benignly, could accomplish its efficiency without sadism.
KIRK: Why, Gill? Why?
GILL: Worked. At first it worked. Then Melakon began take over. Used the. Gave me the drug.
KIRK: Gill. Gill. Gill, can you hear me? You've got to tell those people what happened! You're the only one who can prevent the slaughter! Gill!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_o ... _Series%29
Last edited by JewelSong on Mon Dec 19, 2011 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Live! Live! Live! Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!" - Auntie Mame
Hitler survived several assassination attempts by pure coincidence. (Or Evil preserves evil. I'm not sure which.) It was actually gut-wrenching to think how close they sometimes came to taking him out only to have a bomb's mechanism fail or to have Hitler change his plans at the very last minute. How many lives could have been saved!
No, Di, I haven't seen the movie. Guess I should. Yes, I was astounded by how the Nazis managed to rise to power. It's very sobering and very scary.
I do agree with you that we need to fight back against the Hitlers and Stalins. I'm not a pacifist, though I wish we all could be.
No, Di, I haven't seen the movie. Guess I should. Yes, I was astounded by how the Nazis managed to rise to power. It's very sobering and very scary.
I do agree with you that we need to fight back against the Hitlers and Stalins. I'm not a pacifist, though I wish we all could be.
See, here's the thing. Many people knew perfectly well how bad Hitler and his regime was. Millions and millions and millions of people died horrible deaths because of him. So if a few men died trying to kill him, that would have made sense. I have never heard that "the Allies" were involved in attempts to assassinate him.
As the Duke of Wellington once said, when told that a gunner had Napoleon in his sights at Waterloo: "It is not the business of general officers to fire upon one another."
Bloody game. Rules. Honour.
Bulls**t, is what I say. (And I generally admired the Iron Duke.)
It suits people to have these guys in power. There are too many little fish battening on the big shark. They do not care about anyone else.
As the Duke of Wellington once said, when told that a gunner had Napoleon in his sights at Waterloo: "It is not the business of general officers to fire upon one another."
Bloody game. Rules. Honour.
Bulls**t, is what I say. (And I generally admired the Iron Duke.)
It suits people to have these guys in power. There are too many little fish battening on the big shark. They do not care about anyone else.
Dig deeper.