2 ms·
I don't think it has anything to do with moral clarity. The western allies didn't hesitate to attack because they weren't sure whether Hitler was such a bad guy
by allturtles 1y ago
I don't think it has anything to do with moral clarity. The western allies didn't hesitate to attack because they weren't sure whether Hitler was such a bad guy after all. They feared another repetition of wwi and worse, because the increased effectiveness of aerial bombing would bring the horrors of the trenches to the home front. This fear drove all of the capitulations to Hitler by France and the UK in the 1930s, and continued as late as 1944, when much of the British leadership still feared to land armies in the killing fields of northwest Europe.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoIf you believe that today WW2 was "morally clear," what you are saying is that it was clearly worth overcoming all of those risks and that fear (understandable as it is). They did not do that and instead were spurred into action only when they themselves were attacked, ergo obviously it was not morally clear at the time.
- allturtles 1y agoOkay, well I disagree with your dimensional analysis. To me moral clarity is being confident about who is in the right and who is in the wrong. Taking action to do something about it is another matter. To me it's morally clear that Ukraine is in the right in the current war, but I have taken no personal risks to put my life on the line for that belief.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoFair point!