| RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson 08:23 - Dec 8 with 3633 views | BlueandTruesince82 |
Last of the dambusters.
Fly well old boy. |  |
| |  |
| RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 10:51 - Dec 9 with 383 views | Ryorry |
| RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 09:36 - Dec 9 by BlueandTruesince82 |
No, you have tried to support the argument that a defensive act carries the same weight as on offensive one and that a civilian attack by Russia should be seen in the same light as the dambuster raid.
I have had to go into specifics to illustrate why both your and Crawrfords moral stance is quite misguided and expand where you have then tried to twist away from that and still make a case for you being correct instead of just agreeing that a civilian attack by putin should not be viewed through the same lense as the dambuster operation. I am simply adding meat to the bone of my argument as opposed to leaving a carcass of argument that has no leg to support it. Crawford, who I was responding to drew the comparable of Putin and the Dambusters and so, as I have already said, I have continued with that because that is the context of the debate.
I'd recommend re reading the thread.
[Post edited 9 Dec 2022 10:21]
|
I happened to see a docu on the Dambusters raid about 4 nights ago on one of the freeview channels (think it might have been Smithsonian or Yesterday) - which looked at it more from the engineering & tech points of view, but spared no detail about civilian deaths, including iirc, about 1,900 deaths of people living in homes which were swept away when one of the dams walls was breached.
I hadn't known that, & was shocked, it was tragic - but my second feeling straight after that was "it was for the greater good" - ie to rid the world of all the tragically greater evils you listed.
Whilst I agree with Stokie re not losing our own morality as an ever-present consideration *in principle*, I'd say "for the greater good" sometimes does have to apply eventually, as you've laid out so well re the Dambusters raid. (It's an interesting philosophical theory, Utilitarianism, developed by John Stuart Mill & Jeremy Bentham - WeWereZombies would I think be able to tell you more!) |  |
| |
| RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 11:29 - Dec 9 with 336 views | BlueandTruesince82 |
| RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 10:51 - Dec 9 by Ryorry |
I happened to see a docu on the Dambusters raid about 4 nights ago on one of the freeview channels (think it might have been Smithsonian or Yesterday) - which looked at it more from the engineering & tech points of view, but spared no detail about civilian deaths, including iirc, about 1,900 deaths of people living in homes which were swept away when one of the dams walls was breached.
I hadn't known that, & was shocked, it was tragic - but my second feeling straight after that was "it was for the greater good" - ie to rid the world of all the tragically greater evils you listed.
Whilst I agree with Stokie re not losing our own morality as an ever-present consideration *in principle*, I'd say "for the greater good" sometimes does have to apply eventually, as you've laid out so well re the Dambusters raid. (It's an interesting philosophical theory, Utilitarianism, developed by John Stuart Mill & Jeremy Bentham - WeWereZombies would I think be able to tell you more!) |
Absolutely and as I said (as has been ignored) I have never advocated attacking civilian targets for the sake of it the entire point is that you can't conflate the 2 scenarios as they were being done so. It is apples and oranges as you clearly understand.
We must ask ourselves does the end justify the means and in the dambusters and any allied operation, yes it did.
Would Putin doing so, no it wouldn't.
The interesting question that our morality police have not asked is how would the world view a simar act by Ukraine in current circumstances. If Ukraine could strike a target that would bring about the end of the war and Russian surrender be justifiable if it were to result in mass casualties of Russian civilians?
At the moment it would seem there is no need to take such a step as Ukrsinan forces have been dominant.
That said Russia has already sent hundreds of thousands of its own civilians towards their death through its conscription so would that mean it was more justifiable?
Would the morality needle move if it was a final throw of a dice with Ukraine on the brink of defeat? Where does the right to defend one's sovereignty end?
As others have eloquently explained the DB raid was an act of desperation to try and turn the tide of the war, it was given little chance of success, but it had to be done because it was that or do nothing and it DID have a material impact on the outcome of the war despite some odd claims otherwise on here. All of which just further underlines how foolhardy it is try and apply the same weight to the the 2 scenarios given.
Bonkers. | |
| |
| RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 13:17 - Dec 9 with 296 views | Churchman |
| RIP George Leonard 'Johnny' Johnson on 10:51 - Dec 9 by Ryorry |
I happened to see a docu on the Dambusters raid about 4 nights ago on one of the freeview channels (think it might have been Smithsonian or Yesterday) - which looked at it more from the engineering & tech points of view, but spared no detail about civilian deaths, including iirc, about 1,900 deaths of people living in homes which were swept away when one of the dams walls was breached.
I hadn't known that, & was shocked, it was tragic - but my second feeling straight after that was "it was for the greater good" - ie to rid the world of all the tragically greater evils you listed.
Whilst I agree with Stokie re not losing our own morality as an ever-present consideration *in principle*, I'd say "for the greater good" sometimes does have to apply eventually, as you've laid out so well re the Dambusters raid. (It's an interesting philosophical theory, Utilitarianism, developed by John Stuart Mill & Jeremy Bentham - WeWereZombies would I think be able to tell you more!) |
I understand the point about not losing our own morality but in war this gets muddled a bit. Was it ok to starve the German population in WW1? Morally repugnant, it was key to destroying the Kaiser’s Germany.
A few months after the dams raid, Hamburg was attacked. The death toll was about 34,000 men, women and children with 180,000 injured. Numbers which defy imagination, as does the fire storm that engulfed the city. The whole of the area was dislocated for 6 months.
Figures given by German sources indicate that 183 large factories were destroyed out of 524 in the city and 4,118 smaller factories out of 9,068 were destroyed. Other losses included damage to or destruction of 580 industrial concerns and armaments works, 299 of which were important enough to be listed by name. The Hamburg area never truly recovered. Speer said that five raids like that and the war would have been over.
Was attacking the city in this way justifiable? I believe so. It certainly damaged Germany’s war capacity. Morally justifiable? That’s more difficult, but I have to say yes. If you are engaged in war you go out to win as fast as you can at least cost to you.
The Germans had no problem demolishing Warsaw, Rotterdam, and attacking every place it could in Britain. The beams used to navigate the Luftwaffe to Coventry crossed over the city centre. The results are there for all to see to this day. I don’t think many people cared to much how we attacked the Germans after that. It was about survival and ultimately defeating them.
Britain engaged in total war. We, with the US fought a world war, unlike Germany and Japan. If wrecking Germany from the sky was the only realistic option at the time, why not? You could argue it’d have been morally wrong not to do it. Weird arguments, I know but history has to be looked in the context of the time and as objectively as possible in my view.
So I agree, not losing morality is a consideration in principle but so is the the greater good. Particularly with aggressors, whether it’s Hitler, Napoleon or Putin, ultimately it’s about stopping them.
As a point of interest, you can still go and see Jeremy Bentham. Not much of a conversationalist these days, being stuffed but never forget ‘an action is right if it creates happiness in the greatest number of people, and wrong is if it produces the opposite effect.’
https://londonist.com/london/jeremy-bentham-ucl-body-auto-icon-where [Post edited 9 Dec 2022 14:10]
|  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
