4 ms·
The post-hoc rationalizations are clearly defined, which makes people more comfortable paying homage to WWII despite it being incredibly dicey. I say post-hoc b
by oooyay 2y ago
The post-hoc rationalizations are clearly defined, which makes people more comfortable paying homage to WWII despite it being incredibly dicey. I say post-hoc because the US actually had a rather large Nazi party forming. Most people joining the war were pretty aloof as to why. It was only when those troops encountered the the Nazi death camps that the state of things became clear. The US primarily joined the war effort not because we heard what was happening to Jews, not because there was a massive land grab occurring, and not because two countries had gone an absolutely psychotic blitzkrieg - but because the Japanese Empire dared to bomb our strategic island fleet. It was a major blow, but just enough to wake up a sleeping beast.
I say WWII was dicey because we literally burned cities, we dropped nuclear bombs, we leveled entire cities with bombing runs as show of force. You can argue these things were necessary - and I agree! But it's important to realize much of this occurred before we knew about the atrocities.
If you read enough Sun Tzu, nobody really knows (from a warriors perspective) why they go to war until you're there. The populace almost never knows the truth, even through time, because most of what they're told is a story that changes with time. It's true of most wars.
- SkipperCat 2y agoIt has been said if the US and its allies lost WWII, the victorious Axis would have tried and executed the US military leaders for war crimes for the bombing campaigns. A prime example of history is written by the victors. PBS did a great documentary of Nazis in the US pre-WWII https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/nazi-town-usa/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/nazi-town-... It elaborates on your point about the large US Nazi presence.
- jimbobthrowawy 2y agoWere any axis leaders tried for war crimes related to bombing campaigns? Most of what I've heard of relates to smaller more specific warcrimes and ones related to genocide. I'm sure there's more examples, but the only allied case I can think of was a soldier convicted for hiding in an ambulance and shooting from it.
- oooyay 2y agoNo: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/06/patrick-j-buchanan/wwii-war-crimes/ https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/06/patrick-j-buchanan/wwii-... There was a strategic decision not to charge Nazis for the bombing of London.
- oooyay 2y ago> A prime example of history is written by the victors. Not quite; that requires equalities; the Nazis and that version of Japan were not nearly equal in their evil or atrocities to the Allies. My point moreso was that the Allies were doing a thing in war we don't do anymore, which is matching force with force - which today is illegal. We have the Geneva Convention that stops us from doing that anymore. Now of course, late in the war we discovered the death camps and that is the post-hoc rationalization that I'm referring to but nonetheless the Geneva convention is a byproduct of the shock of what it took to win. It more or less attempts to put a ceiling on the ferocity of war.