Moral Equivalence---the new 'politically correct'

Snickers Man

There's a new buzzword making its way over from the United States. Or at least from the 'lock and load let's waste us a few towelheads' good ol' boy tendency in the national media:

Moral Equivalence.

Moral Equivalence is the new crime of the weak-willed latte-drinking pants-wetting hand-wringing panty-waist etc etc you dig the stereotype who dares to try and put the actions of one side into context.

To be 'Morally Equivalent' is now to be no better than a mass murderer without the guts to actually partake. If you try to point out that maybe those who have suffered their homes being obliterated by Cruise missiles and laser guided air-to-ground missiles might have some grounds for disgruntlement, the rightwingers now have a new killer argument to use against you which automatically exempts them from any form of self criticism:

you are suffering from Moral Equivalence.

You can't tell the difference between good killing and bad killing, between justifiable homicide and murder, between evil slitting of throats by barbaric medieval savages and good clean high-tech 'interdiction of enemy assets.'

Well, I could take that if the conservative media (ie nearly all national media here and abroad) didn't base much of their arguments on the brutally crude nature of the tactics of Iraqi insurgents.

Take slitting people's throats for example, which these guys have done alot of. Usually on a Webcam.

Is that so terrible?

OK. Let's agree that it is. I certainly can't bring myself to watch any of the video clips that are on the net in abundance.

But is this not something that every infantry soldier in every western army since time immemorial been taught to do as part of his basic training? (Correct me if I'm wrong here. I've never been a soldier)

And if it is, are we saying that sometimes there is a justifiable reason to slit somebody's throat from ear to ear?

Just asking. Any soldiers or former soldiers out there able to confirm or refute my claim that learning how to slit somebody;'s throat with a knife is part of basic infantry training?

How's that for moral equivalence?

stevenmu

Snickers Man wrote:

But is this not something that every infantry soldier in every western army since time immemorial been taught to do as part of his basic training? (Correct me if I'm wrong here. I've never been a soldier)

I'm not sure exactly what techniques are taught in the military but the obvious difference is that soldiers would be trained to kill in combat situations, they are not trained to take prisoners lock them in a room and then behead them. Also, I'm pretty sure that a soldier in combat wouldn't stop and take the time to behead someone, they would kill whoever needed to be killed and move on, beheading some is the same as killing someone and then mutilating their corpse so their family and friends suffer even more.

As for moral equivalence I think you've misunderstood how it works. My understanding of it is that, in terms of the Iraq war, supporting Suddam Hussein was helping him to kill more kurds, oppress his people longer, develop better weapons and continue supporting terrorism in Israel. Helping him do this is 'morally equivalent' to doing this yourself, and opposing the US invasion was 'morally equivalent' to helping SH. Some Americans do see not helping with the invasion as equivalent to helping SH, i.e. you're either with us or against us, but they tend to be in the minority.

Meh

Snickers Man wrote:

But is this not something that every infantry soldier in every western army since time immemorial been taught to do as part of his basic training? (Correct me if I'm wrong here. I've never been a soldier)

And if it is, are we saying that sometimes there is a justifiable reason to slit somebody's throat from ear to ear?

Just asking. Any soldiers or former soldiers out there able to confirm or refute my claim that learning how to slit somebody;'s throat with a knife is part of basic infantry training?

How's that for moral equivalence?

Soldiers in most Western armies are specifically taught not to slit the throats of their prisoners.

DadaKopf

The heads over at http://www.freedominst.org use it all the time. They're Ireland's little neoconservative cultist enclave.

They deploy the moral equivalence argument when you criticise the Iraq invasion. If you condemn the invasion of Iraq and the violence committed by US soldiers, they accuse you of supporting the terrorists. Not really accusing people of moral equivalence as such, but they like to think that by criticising the war, you're unable to tell right from wrong. It doesn't matter that you may be condemining all violence, i.e. upholding the universal Charter of Human Rights.

It's the perfect way of avoiding real debates and of shielding yourself from scrutiny.

Because what they actually end up doing is themselves plunging the world into amoral relativism. Their morality stretches only as far as what you need to say to justify American power (TM).

Snickers Man

Meh wrote:

Soldiers in most Western armies are specifically taught not to slit the throats of their prisoners.

Really? Ever seen 'Band of Brothers'?

OK it was a sub machine gun. That makes it all right.

Trojan

Cool - 2nd link to What you can't say inside 12 hours.

Paul Graham wrote:

In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not. "Blasphemy", "sacrilege", and "heresy" were such labels for a good part of western history, as in more recent times "indecent", "improper", and "unamerican" have been. By now these labels have lost their sting. They always do. By now they're mostly used ironically. But in their time, they had real force.

Wibbs

I'm sorry, "Band of Brothers"? How does this further your argument?

As has been pointed out before, all armed forces are obviously trained in lethal force techniques. However, when opposing combatants surrender and become prisoners of war there are many codes of practice governing their treatment. Slitting prisoners throats is not one of the articles of the Geneva convention* AFAIK :rolleyes: . It certainly doesn't extend to slitting their throats on video after sometimes subjecting them to weeks of mental and physical torture.

While many unspeakable things occur at the hands of regular army forces in war, especially in the heat of the moment, it can hardly be seen in the same light. If you've just had your friend killed beside you and then the opposing force surrenders, not killing them can be further from your mind. Even in that situation most soldiers will tend not to carry out revenge killings. They're trained that way. In any event, at least armed forces are accountable and may be court martialled if such war crimes are brought to light(either at the time or later when the facts come out).



*A cursory glance at the Geneva convention on the prosecution of war might be a good start

IceHawk

Wibbs wrote:

While many unspeakable things occur at the hands of regular army forces in war, especially in the heat of the moment, it can hardly be seen in the same light.

Agreed. The sort of attacks carried out by extremists in wartime tend to be far more brutal than those carried out by regular forces (According to our media, anyway). But the important thing here is the word extremists. Regular forces on neither side are accused of brutal savagery, in general, but the perception is that the defending country's army is the same as the extremist minority.

Hobbes

Snickers Man wrote:

Really? Ever seen 'Band of Brothers'?

OK it was a sub machine gun. That makes it all right.

Btw did you see like picard where he was captured and was told to say three lights! But like there were only two lights and they took all his clothes and wouldn't feed him! I think its horrible that prisoners are treated that way, the government should do something about it.

Agreed. The sort of attacks carried out by extremists in wartime tend to be far more brutal than those carried out by regular forces (According to our media, anyway). But the important thing here is the word extremists.

Actually the important words were "our media". If check out of some of the stuff that doesn't get shown you will find both are as brutal.

supersheep

Snickers Man wrote:

Really? Ever seen 'Band of Brothers'?

OK it was a sub machine gun. That makes it all right.

Yeah, soldiers kill prisoners... Occasionally. Also, WWII training was not quite on a par with modern training - they were conscripts. Look at Vietnam, and then look at Iraq - way more war crimes in Vietnam.
Moral equivalence is balls. Or rather, calling it wrong is. If the US has repressed a nation, or supported its dicatatoial rulers, then they have a right to be pissed...

Victor

Wibbs wrote:

I'm sorry, "Band of Brothers"? How does this further your argument?

There are at least two incidents where prisoners are killed.

IceHawk wrote:

The sort of attacks carried out by extremists in wartime tend to be far more brutal than those carried out by regular forces

My Lai massacre? Carpet bombing? Cluster weapons?

Meh

Victor wrote:

There are at leat two incidents where prsioners are killed.

And there are zero incidents where soldiers are trained to kill unarmed prisoners. That was the daft parallel the original poster was trying to draw, that killing an armed enemy in combat (which is what Western soldiers are actually trained to do) is the same as murdering an unarmed and defenceless prisoner while you film it for propaganda purposes.

Victor

Meh wrote:

And there are zero incidents where soldiers are trained to kill unarmed prisoners.

Thats becasue it was a given. Killing prisoners was considered such a non-event training wasn't needed. And now that I think of it theres a third incident (one in Normandy, one in the Netherlands and one by French soldiers in Germany/Austria) and also the vigilantee incident where they kill the suspected German / Nazi officer.

That was the daft parallel the original poster was trying to draw, that killing an armed enemy in combat (which is what Western soldiers are actually trained to do) is the same as murdering an unarmed and defenceless prisoner while you film it for propaganda purposes.

Is it really that daft? Someone ends up dead. Are 50,000 un(der)-recorded deaths among Iraqis less objectionable than 50 executions on video? Is the carpet bombing of 10,000 Iraqi soldiers "OK"?

In another era would you have the shell-shocked executed for "lacking moral fibre", pour encourager ....

Wibbs

Victor wrote:

Thats becasue it was a given. Killing prisoners was considered such a non-event training wasn't needed.

No I'm afraid you're wrong. Certainly with respect to WW2. There were very specific instructions about the handling of POW's. Infantry were even given leaflets in certain theatres to spell this out(along with handy phrases in the opposing languages, I kid you not). Even if you forget the moral angle, prisoners often had vital information about the progress of the battle(plus other info) and provided same on many occasions. Usually without duress. In fact the British forces realised early on that the torture usually yielded bad intelligence. The softly softly approach generally worked better.

Any battle, especially among the infantry descends into organised chaos. Chaos where reprehensible things can and all too often do happen. It's a fact of war. It's not a game. But it's a chaos with some rules.

I know something about WW2 as I had many family members involved in it, serving in navies, armies and air forces. The killing of POW's was not considered a "non event". In fact one of my relatives(serving with the Americans) brought a man up on charge for doing just that. As a battle can go either way it serves no purpose to mistreat prisoners as often they can be your judges by the end of the day.

Is it really that daft? Someone ends up dead. Are 50,000 un(der)-recorded deaths among Iraqis less objectionable than 50 executions on video? Is the carpet bombing of 10,000 Iraqi soldiers "OK"?

In the case of the Iraqi soldiers, maybe, maybe not. It could be argued that the carpet bombing brought about a quicker cessation of organised hostilities that an extended ground war would not have. Maybe more deaths, or at least civilian deaths were avoided. There are parallels with the nuclear bombing of Japan.

I agree with you regarding the civilian casualties and I would leave the 50,000 un(der)-recorded deaths to the verdict of history, a verdict that will not go well if it's even close to true.

In another era would you have the shell-shocked executed for "lacking moral fibre", pour encourager ....

True, but WW1 was a war(if that's the one you refer to) that changed peoples attitudes and added many codes to the Geneva convention, specifically in 1925 in consideration of the treatment for prisoners of war and the wounded.

DadaKopf

The sort of attacks carried out by extremists in wartime tend to be far more brutal than those carried out by regular forces (According to our media, anyway). But the important thing here is the word extremists. Regular forces on neither side are accused of brutal savagery, in general, but the perception is that the defending country's army is the same as the extremist minority.

Victor's already picked you up on this but all I'll say is this kind of argument simply normalises extreme violence. Somehow we imagine that extreme violence by the state is somehow rational and normal compared with an external, dark enemy who 'obviously' commit disgusting, evil acts of savagery. It doesn't matter that it may not be true at all, or the effect that this way of thinking has.

"Shock and awe" anyone?

Wibbs

There is no doubt that war and the prosecution of same is a cruel, very ugly business. No doubt at all. I take the point that there is a perception among some quarters that "official" war is ok while other forms of warfare are considered beyond the pale. Certainly most media commentators take this view to a greater or lesser extent. I'm simply saying that there are more mechanisms of accountablity on the official side than on the insurgent side where there are none. An atrocity is an atrocity, but on the official side at least there is at least a modicum of organisation, accountablity and training to minimise such obvious atrocities.

I was also mainly replying to the erroneous posts which suggested that professional soldiers were trained to slit the throats of prisoners and that the killing of those same prisoners was a non-event.

Shock and awe was a good example of the ugliness that is still with us, but it's a long way from the firebombing of German cities in WW2. We have both new technology and the mass media spotlight to thank for that.

Basically if a war is started(regardless of the moral/political reasons for it), the object of both sides is to inflict the most damage to each other 'til one capitulates. Sometimes "shock and awe" does this very well and reduces the level of casualties on both sides. certainly that "blitzkrieg" tactic served the US well in ending the official war very quickly. As for the unofficial war, we're into hearts and minds territory. They seem to have lost both of those.

Sand

Really? Ever seen 'Band of Brothers'?

OK it was a sub machine gun. That makes it all right.

A) On the one hand Im surprised that someone would use an example from a work of fiction ( based on real events, but I sincerly doubt the makers let the truth get in the way of a good story - hell, its even implied in the series by the officer who apparently killed the prisoners that he spread the story himself to ensure he had a reputation as a bad man to cross) to justify a postion in comparison to real world extremists sawing peoples heads off. On the other hand, nothing *should* surprise me these days.

I truly am surprised that its been given more discussion than its worth. Even if it happened in Band of Brothers, doesnt mean jack. TV /= Real Life.

If you want to point to moral equivalence you could point to Bomber Harris theory that so long as the bombs fell in roughly the right area, it didnt matter whether they hit factories or local houses as destroyed machinery and dead workers added up to less enemy production either way. Similar logic to the Blitz, for which Britain was more interested in revenge than civillian casualties. It still wouldnt prove moral equivalence though, as the Nazis and even the Japanese Imperial Army have left people with an hell of a benchmark for unrelenting evil acts.

Victor's already picked you up on this but all I'll say is this kind of argument simply normalises extreme violence. Somehow we imagine that extreme violence by the state is somehow rational and normal compared with an external, dark enemy who 'obviously' commit disgusting, evil acts of savagery.

One would trace this belief to a states at least nominal adherence to the GC where soldiers are punished for mistreating prisoners, murdering civillians etc etc differentiates them from organisations which do not. It is an important distinction to make, because simply arguing that it is of no importance how "parties" conduct themselves in war - theyre all evil - undermines the case for adhering to the GC. War is effectively a part of human existence, Plato said as much thousands of years ago and hes yet to be proven wrong. Adherence to the GC at least minimises the impact to some degree.

It is no more effective than the rule of civillian law - murders still occur, robberies, drink driving. But one would not say Dublin=Mogadishu because murders and crime occur in both. Dublin enforces law, Mogadishu is effectively lawless.

"Shock and awe" anyone?

"Shock and Awe" as I understand it describes the US strategy of hitting an enemy military so hard, fast and overwhelmingly that it encourages the enemy to perceive resistance as hopeless. Its a military strategy afaik.

If I perceive your use of the phrase correctly youre implying it means acts equivalent to slitting civillian engineers throats live on air? I may have taken it up wrong.

Snickers Man

Sand wrote:

A) On the one hand Im surprised that someone would use an example from a work of fiction ( based on real events, but I sincerly doubt the makers let the truth get in the way of a good story - hell, its even implied in the series by the officer who apparently killed the prisoners that he spread the story himself to ensure he had a reputation as a bad man to cross) to justify a postion in comparison to real world extremists sawing peoples heads off. On the other hand, nothing *should* surprise me these days.

Let me take this one up as I was the one who originally brought Band of Brothers into it. Hobbes, usually one of the more sensible posters, even likened this to bringing a moral from a Star Trek episode to bear in a sensible argument. For shame, Hobbes!

The point is that Band of Brothers is based on a book that purports to be a factual account of a US rifle company's deeds in WWII. If its veracity is in doubt, it should be because the subjects of the book were allowed to review its contents before it went into print and 'suggest' amendments. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that anything that they would be ashamed to admit would have appeared in it.

In fact the book is even more gruesome than the TV series. Speirs (the guy who was believed to have massacred prisoners) was revered as a 'fighting leader' and his actions were justified by the soldiers under whom he served. The book makes reference to the old 'only some one who has been in combat can criticise a man for doing that sort of thing' argument came up. It's a bit like saying 'You can't criticise Zarqawi's beheaders cause you just weren't there, man!'

The fact is that the closer we come to justifiying the barbarism of US troops in combat (and the book goes into some gruesome detail of how the 'Brothers' finish off a German prisoner that they dumped in the snow because he was too injured to carry back to base--something that is only alluded to in passing in the TV series) then the closer we come to justifying the terrorism of Zarqawi and his cohorts.

I never suggested that Western soldiers were trained to kill prisoners. I asserted as fact that they were taught as part of their basic training how to kill people with knives and contrasted that with the fact that the nature of the killing that the Jihadis inflict on their prisoners is one of the things we are invited to condemn as medieval by the bien pensants in the media.

DadaKopf

"Shock and Awe" as I understand it describes the US strategy of hitting an enemy military so hard, fast and overwhelmingly that it encourages the enemy to perceive resistance as hopeless. Its a military strategy afaik.

If I perceive your use of the phrase correctly youre implying it means acts equivalent to slitting civillian engineers throats live on air? I may have taken it up wrong.

"Shock and awe" is just a thrifty way of saying "overwhelming force", which translates into brutal civilian casualties. This happened during the so-called "surgical" part of the Iraqi campaign. I hope you remember the pictures of innocent Iraqis who were slashed to bits by allied shrapnel. That stuff cuts through flesh like a knife.

One would trace this belief to a states at least nominal adherence to the GC where soldiers are punished for mistreating prisoners, murdering civillians etc etc differentiates them from organisations which do not.

[...]

It is no more effective than the rule of civillian law - murders still occur, robberies, drink driving. But one would not say Dublin=Mogadishu because murders and crime occur in both. Dublin enforces law, Mogadishu is effectively lawless.

I'm not comparing two contexts thousands of miles apart. I'm comparing two sides in a single theatre of war. I see what you say about the need for accountability, and about the differentiation the GC establishes, because not doing so undermines just war theory. I don't buy the argument that accountability excuses violence against other human beings. See, the thing is, the invasion of Iraq itself undermines the case for a just war. In my opinion, both sides are as bad as each other.

Edit: I'll second what bonkey said just below as I was typing.

bonkey

Every time I read this thread, the words "it ain't what you do its the way that you do it" spring to mind.

Im just not sure how much I agree or disagree with the sentiment.

As for moral equivalence in the original sense it was brought up - "if you oppose X, then its the moral equivalent of supporting Y" - its a farcical argument which relies on an unstated (and incorrect) supposition that X and Y are the only two options. Not only that, but if we take any individual, group, or nation using this argument to defend actions in one arena, and then ask them to apply the same logic to every comparable arena....it falls apart.

Sure....our western nation states are by-and-large better then the worst scum of the earth. Well, gosh. Thats neither a surprise, nor a worthy accolade. But thats effectively whats being argued here. Not whether or not their actions are acceptable, but rather whether or not they're as bad as the other guy. Being second-worst (regardless of how bad that is) is apparently becoming today's entry-level of acceptability.

jc

is_that_so

bonkey wrote:

As for moral equivalence in the original sense it was brought up - "if you oppose X, then its the moral equivalent of supporting Y" - its a farcical argument which relies on an unstated (and incorrect) supposition that X and Y are the only two options. Not only that, but if we take any individual, group, or nation using this argument to defend actions in one arena, and then ask them to apply the same logic to every comparable arena....it falls apart.

jc

This self same logic has been in use for a long time. Seem to recall it being wheeled out in each of the abortion referenda here, although it was particularly virulent in the first one in 1983.

Von

The thing at Dachau is probably one of the most notorious cases of allied troops killing POWs.

Snickers Man

bonkey wrote:

As for moral equivalence in the original sense it was brought up - "if you oppose X, then its the moral equivalent of supporting Y" -

That's not my understanding. You're saying it means 'if you don't oppose X, you must morally support the opposite'. I'm saying that moral equivalence means 'If doing X makes Y a bad boy, then doing something very similar makes Z a bad boy too.'

Eg it's wrong to set off bombs in civilian centres with the intent of killing people. It's immaterial to my mind whether those bombs were delivered as semtex and petrol in the back of an SUV or by pin-point laser-guided accuracy by a Stealth Bomber and an AWAC.

What the right have done is to take this phrase 'moral equivalence' and invest it with the sort of derogatory meaning that one would normally apply to an evil person: eg degenerate, pervert sicko.

It's their way of arguing against any form of accountability or self criticism.

'Those laws of natural justice don't apply to me!! How dare you say they do!! How morally equivalent of you!!'

Me?

Morally equivalent and proud.

Let's find the old ****ers who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki 60 years ago this week and throw them in jail.

bonkey wrote:

its a farcical argument

As you interpreted it; yes it is.

Sand

Let me take this one up as I was the one who originally brought Band of Brothers into it. Hobbes, usually one of the more sensible posters, even likened this to bringing a moral from a Star Trek episode to bear in a sensible argument. For shame, Hobbes!

Hobbes and I would probably only agree on two things. That we disagree intensely on just about everything. And, Im guessing given Hobbes comment, we agree that its ridiculous to use a work of fiction as the basis for a factual argument. I doubt BoB is any more accurate than other works of fiction based on real events, like U-571, Pearl Harbour, or even Black Hawk Down, which included direct discussions between the commanding US general and troops volunteering to protect crash sites - that never actually happened.

Seriously, if you want a good basis for your argument of moral equivalence, then theres plenty of examples in the real world you could use. Such as what Von dug up.

My own thoughts on such incidents - where Allied or indeed liberated prisoners turned on the camp guards would be mixed. I find it hard to summon up compassion for members of such an evil organisation as the SS who oversaw some of the most despicable crimes against humanity the world has known. So Id view their deaths as just, if not legal.

On the other hand, when the camps were liberated all that was left were usually young, recently recruited SS soldiers who were ordered to remain behind to suffer at the hands of liberated/liberators whilst the real bastards sneaked off into the night. Though I doubt the SS officer who was executed in Vons link spent his time on the infamous Russian front fighting for human rights.

It shouldnt have happened, but the SS volunteers got a better death than they inflicted on others, and as Vons link notes where it occured it was units and local officers acting of their own volition in the heat of the moment rather than a directed, approved policy from on high. Whilst there seems to have been a popular mood amongst US troops not to take SS prisoners after massacres of US POWs by the SS earlier in the war, it was an American officer stopped the shootings. I dont see moral equivalence between that and say ethnic cleansing, or murdering charity workers and civil engineers live on TV.

Eg it's wrong to set off bombs in civilian centres with the intent of killing people. It's immaterial to my mind whether those bombs were delivered as semtex and petrol in the back of an SUV or by pin-point laser-guided accuracy by a Stealth Bomber and an AWAC.

You say its wrong to bomb with the intent of killing people in cities. You dont differentiate between military personnel and civillian personnel? Hence its no more objectionable to kill a civillian than it is a soldier? You disagree then with the protections given to civillians under the GC?

Let's find the old ****ers who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki 60 years ago this week and throw them in jail.

Why single them out? The death toll from Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasnt all that much when you consider the USAF was dropping incindery bombs on Japanese cities in massive raids because Japanese houses were wooden, hence causing mass devastation, homelessness and casualties without any need for atomic bombs. On one nights bombing in March 9th-10th 1945, nearly 100,000 Japanese civillians were killed in fire bombings, more than Hiroshima. Japans airspace was undefended and those raids would simply have gone on and on and on and on and on. Ordering those raids and ordering the dropping of the atomic bombs *was* effectively morally equivalent in my opinion. They were both wrong, and both informed by the same logic.

What the right have done is to take this phrase 'moral equivalence' and invest it with the sort of derogatory meaning that one would normally apply to an evil person: eg degenerate, pervert sicko.

Perhaps it could be seen as distaste with peoples efforts to equate say, a soldier shooting a prisoner, arguing that the Nazis also shot prisoners, hence the soldiers government and leadership are all Nazis. Thats not rejecting self criticism, its rejecting the hype that overwhelms it. Its probably not suprising that moral equivalence as a term emerged from a political scene were Bush is apparently Lord of Evil upon Earth, and Moore and Coulter respectively are hailed as political giants.

Davei141

snickers man wrote:

Let's find the old ****ers who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki 60 years ago this week and throw them in jail.

Sands wrote:

Why single them out? The death toll from Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasnt all that much when you consider the USAF was dropping incindery bombs on Japanese cities in massive raids because Japanese houses were wooden, hence causing mass devastation, homelessness and casualties without any need for atomic bombs. On one nights bombing in March 9th-10th 1945, nearly 100,000 Japanese civillians were killed in fire bombings, more than Hiroshima

Yeah and if a ground invasion went ahead we would be saying that the death toll from the fire bombings and the A bombs 'wasnt all that much'. Some people just dont get it. the japanese didnt surrender after the fire bombings, they didnt surrender after hiroshima, it took nagasaki for them to surrender. maybe snickers should be calling for the emperor (if he was still alive) and the stubborn generals who sacrificed the people of tokyo, hiroshima and nagasaki because they were 'too proud to surrender' to be thrown in jail. They were asked countless times to surrender.

supersheep

Davei141 wrote:

Yeah and if a ground invasion went ahead we would be saying that the death toll from the fire bombings and the A bombs 'wasnt all that much'. Some people just dont get it. the japanese didnt surrender after the fire bombings, they didnt surrender after hiroshima, it took nagasaki for them to surrender. maybe snickers should be calling for the emperor (if he was still alive) and the stubborn generals who sacrificed the people of tokyo, hiroshima and nagasaki because they were 'too proud to surrender' to be thrown in jail. They were asked countless times to surrender.

Many of them were executed, such as Marshall Tito - the Emperor was left alone for political reasons.

rsynnott

stevenmu wrote:

I'm not sure exactly what techniques are taught in the military but the obvious difference is that soldiers would be trained to kill in combat situations, they are not trained to take prisoners lock them in a room and then behead them. Also, I'm pretty sure that a soldier in combat wouldn't stop and take the time to behead someone, they would kill whoever needed to be killed and move on, beheading some is the same as killing someone and then mutilating their corpse so their family and friends suffer even more.

They might take the time for a little torture later on, though...

Snickers Man

Sand wrote:

its ridiculous to use a work of fiction as the basis for a factual argument. I doubt BoB is any more accurate than other works of fiction based on real events, like U-571, Pearl Harbour, or even Black Hawk Down, which included direct discussions between the commanding US general and troops volunteering to protect crash sites - that never actually happened.

The book BoB is NOT a work of fiction. It's a straightforward narrative of the history of a rifle company in WWII based on interviews with the soldiers themselves and backed up with reference to official histories of the time.

Pick it up and have a browse next time you're in a bookshop.

The TV series was a dramatisation of the book and the incident that I referred to is mentioned in the book. Given that the surviving members of E company who co-operated in the writing of the book were allowed review the contents it suggests that they condoned the massacre of captured German prisoners.

And these were not SS prison guards. They were combatants taken on the field of battle.

DadaKopf

How about getting back on topic, folks?