4 ms·

> The disbanding of the military was part of the DeBa'athification doctrine. Which was inspired by the denazification effort in post-WWII Germany. The problem

by zeveb 9y ago

> The disbanding of the military was part of the DeBa'athification doctrine. Which was inspired by the denazification effort in post-WWII Germany. The problem is that the U.S. actually tried to follow through this time (the denazification effort rather notoriously slowed down first as the Allies realised that they needed competent administrators if they didn't want the Germans to starve to death, and then later as the Cold War heated up). In retrospect the U.S. probably should have deliberately chosen to prosecute only the bigger fish, with a ban from public employment one punishment for the smaller of those. But hindsight is 20/20.

boomboomsubban 9y ago
>But hindsight is 20/20. Then why didn't they clearly see the problems that happened when they tried this is Germany and Japan?
- zeveb 9y ago
  In part, because historians & philosophers have generally castigated the Allies for not being more diligent in their denazification efforts. Morally, of course, they're right: people like Wenher von Braun were very likely guilty of crimes against humanity, and very possibly should have been hanged (he wasn't, of course, and as a result we got to the Moon). In my late-90s education this was all taught as almost unmitigatedly bad thing; the general belief was that we should have done the Right Thing, not the Pragmatic Thing. Our experience in Iraq indicates that perhaps the Pragmatic Thing can also sometimes be the Right Thing. We might have been able to avoid a lot of injustice with a relatively small amount of injustice.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    For this explanation to make sense, you need to consider "mass indiscriminate firing" to be "justice." Those vocal critics of things like Operation Paperclip could have told the Bush administration that was ridiculous in 2003. They were never asked, almost no one was. The occupation strategy was slapped together last minute by people chosen for their political ideology.
  - gaius 9y ago
    In a regime where membership of The Party is mandatory if you want a good job, it's reasonable to assume that many if not most members of The Party were merely ticking a box.

by zeveb 9y ago

boomboomsubban 9y ago

>But hindsight is 20/20. Then why didn't they clearly see the problems that happened when they tried this is Germany and Japan?

zeveb 9y ago
In part, because historians & philosophers have generally castigated the Allies for not being more diligent in their denazification efforts. Morally, of course, they're right: people like Wenher von Braun were very likely guilty of crimes against humanity, and very possibly should have been hanged (he wasn't, of course, and as a result we got to the Moon). In my late-90s education this was all taught as almost unmitigatedly bad thing; the general belief was that we should have done the Right Thing, not the Pragmatic Thing. Our experience in Iraq indicates that perhaps the Pragmatic Thing can also sometimes be the Right Thing. We might have been able to avoid a lot of injustice with a relatively small amount of injustice.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  For this explanation to make sense, you need to consider "mass indiscriminate firing" to be "justice." Those vocal critics of things like Operation Paperclip could have told the Bush administration that was ridiculous in 2003. They were never asked, almost no one was. The occupation strategy was slapped together last minute by people chosen for their political ideology.
- gaius 9y ago
  In a regime where membership of The Party is mandatory if you want a good job, it's reasonable to assume that many if not most members of The Party were merely ticking a box.