Admirable Losers

[Plotinus]

Does it matter? Do you shed a tear for all the poor Japanese and German civilians who died in carpet bombings of World War II? Sometimes colletral damage is necessary.

I can see why you're reluctant to use the word "evil" very much.

 

[silver 2039]

I can see why you're reluctant to use the word "evil" very much.

Greater evil > Lesser evil.

Fact is the ends do actually justify the means in some instances. Defeating the Nazi's and Japanese was very much worth the cost of the civilian casualness. Similarly destroying slavery was very much worth the cost of civilian lives.

In the end the world is better because of it. If John Brown hadn't martyred himself than Southern fear and Northern emotion wouldn't have been provoked sufficiently enough for the war to happen.

 

[Dachs]

Fact is the ends do actually justify the means in some instances. Defeating the Nazi's and Japanese was very much worth the cost of the civilian casualness.

The firebombing of Dresden didn't do much, if anything, for the Allied war effort.

 

[Plotinus]

It's one thing to say that it was worth killing innocent people to prevent further deaths. That's a morally defensible position. It's quite another to say that they weren't worth shedding a tear over. That is not.

In the case of the US Civil War, saying it would have been justifiable to wipe out the entire population of the South, on the grounds that this would prevent later problems, goes beyond lunacy. You might as well say that killing everyone in the world would stop all wars.

 

[silver 2039]

In the case of the US Civil War, saying it would have been justifiable to wipe out the entire population of the South, on the grounds that this would prevent later problems, goes beyond lunacy. You might as well say that killing everyone in the world would stop all wars.

You misunderstand. I didn't suggest that the entire population of the South should be wiped out. He said that John Brown was a murder, and I said the the deaths of some innocent was worth the cause, and it could be further justified in that most were likely associated with slavery.

The firebombing of Dresden didn't do much, if anything, for the Allied war effort.

This:

We are not only fighting armies, but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war, as well as their organized armies. I know that this recent movement of mine through Georgia has had a wonderful effect in this respect. Thousands who had been deceived by their lying papers into the belief that we were being whipped all the time, realized the truth, and have no appetite for a repetition of the same experience.
—Letter, Sherman to Henry W. Halleck, December 24, 1864.[2]

Wonderful quote, relevant throughout history.

 

[Plotinus]

You must have meant something different by "the whole bunch of them" then.

 

[silver 2039]

You must have meant something different by "the whole bunch of them" then.

I thought I clarified:

The penalty for treason is death, the whole bunch of them should have been shot, hanged, imprisoned, and stripped of their voting rights particularly the generals, commanders, officers, and government officials, and state officials.

 

[Cutlass]

Douglas MacArthur (Philippines).

There is very little admirable about MacArthur. Being informed that the war had begun, he did nothing until the Philippines was attacked.

 

[Cutlass]

The firebombing of Dresden didn't do much, if anything, for the Allied war effort.

Neither did any of the firebombings, or even the nuking, of Japan.

 

[privatehudson]

To ostracise people, turn them into criminals and execute many of them for doing what they percieved to be their duty to their homeland is hardly any better than holding people in slavery. You may ask why and the answer is that if those men personally did no war crimes then they no more deserve to be executed than the average Wehrmacht officer. Executing officers for the crimes of their flawed state is frankly nuts. If you're going to execute officers for fighting for a country that permitted slavery you might as well go ahead and execute all the Northern officers too.

There were thousands of officers in the Confederate armed forces alone, I see no reason to believe that hanging every last one of them was likely to re-unite the country or bring about prosperity. The North is already accused of warcrimes for the likes of Sherman's march to the sea, one can only imagine what kind of bitterness would still bubble under the surface if those kind of plans had been carried out.

That's not to say that the reconstruction was handled particularly well however.

 

[silver 2039]

To ostracise people, turn them into criminals and execute many of them for doing what they percieved to be their duty to their homeland is hardly any better than holding people in slavery. You may ask why and the answer is that if those men personally did no war crimes then they no more deserve to be executed than the average Wehrmacht officer. Executing officers for the crimes of their flawed state is frankly nuts. If you're going to execute officers for fighting for a country that permitted slavery you might as well go ahead and execute all the Northern officers too.

There were thousands of officers in the Confederate armed forces alone, I see no reason to believe that hanging every last one of them was likely to re-unite the country or bring about prosperity. The North is already accused of warcrimes for the likes of Sherman's march to the sea, one can only imagine what kind of bitterness would still bubble under the surface if those kind of plans had been carried out.

That's not to say that the reconstruction was handled particularly well however.

Hey treason is treason:

Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

The traitors were practically allowed to get off scot free not even Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee were punished in any serious manner.

 

[privatehudson]

Hey treason is treason:

Only if you loose, if you win you become freedom fighters or the "fathers of your nation". Its no coincidence that many southerners genuinely thought they were fighting their country's second revolution/war of independence.

Lee's father's generation had the right to break free from what they percieved as a foreign occupying power, set up their own government and fight to defend it, but if Lee and his generation did the same and lost they all deserve to be hung for having the temerity to try it? I don't think even George III would have been daft enough to suggest that had his ministers won the war Washington, all his officers, the entire continental congress and most colonial officials be shot.

 

[innonimatu]

The penalty for treason is death, the whole bunch of them should have been shot, hanged, imprisoned, and stripped of their voting rights particularly the generals, commanders, officers, and government officials, and state officials.

If one party in a war goes for the total annihilation of the leaders of the other party, and those happen to have strong political support, it'll either:

i) have to carry out a genocide;
ii) cause resistance to the death from everyone among their enemies, possibly getting bogged down and actually losing the war.

And no, not even the treacherous way of doing things would work. Or at least it tends to fail miserably: negotiate a peace treaty, then capture and execute all the enemy leaders. Inevitably someone escapes and starts another war, ending with at least the massacre of a large part of the population. Usual pattern in ancient warfare, especially by those lovable guys, the romans.

Fortunately most of the world is more civilized - smarter and more reasonable - now. As for those who are not... see Hitler vs. Stalin.
Still, I'm noticing a disturbing trend among indians on CFC to be homicidal maniacs. Oh, and a czech too...

On, and on Dresden, even Churchill (he of the chemical weapons against "natives") was embarrassed and admitted that it was an unnecessary act of terrorism.

 

[Dachs]

And no, not even the treacherous way of doing things would work. Or at least it tends to fail miserably: negotiate a peace treaty, then capture and execute all the enemy leaders. Inevitably someone escapes and starts another war, ending with at least the massacre of a large part of the population. Usual pattern in ancient warfare, especially by those lovable guys, the romans.

That actually worked pretty well for the Romans on many an occasion, for example the episode of the Saxons in 370. It's just that the successes don't get publicized as well as the failures. Ammianus, after recording that particular incident, though, goes on to say that the only reason that such an atrocity was permissible was because they were barbarians that were being slaughtered and thus not subject to having the same rights as "civilized" persons. Obviously this excuse was not valid then, nor is it now, and as such I should hope that it wouldn't be seriously suggested.

 

[innonimatu]

That actually worked pretty well for the Romans on many an occasion, for example the episode of the Saxons in 370. It's just that the successes don't get publicized as well as the failures. Ammianus, after recording that particular incident, though, goes on to say that the only reason that such an atrocity was permissible was because they were barbarians that were being slaughtered and thus not subject to having the same rights as "civilized" persons. Obviously this excuse was not valid then, nor is it now, and as such I should hope that it wouldn't be seriously suggested.

Yes, the romans did manage to do that successfully, but that was because they just didn't gave up, even after some greedy praetor got too greedy, caused a rebellion, screwed up, and got massacred with an army!
Really, I can't think of any other ancient empire to suffer so many defeats and still manage to will almost all of its wars. Tenacious bastards!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I had a history professor who tried to attribute that quality to their love for Stoicism. Unless my understand of that philosophy is horribly wrong, and I don't think that it is, that's a bit of a stretch.

 

[Dachs]

Yes, the romans did manage to do that successfully, but that was because they just didn't gave up, even after some greedy praetor got too greedy, caused a rebellion, screwed up, and got massacred with an army!

I think we're thinking of different incidents?

Really, I can't think of any other ancient empire to suffer so many defeats and still manage to will almost all of its wars. Tenacious bastards!

In one sense, yes. But in another, I think the Roman ability to win wars hinged on its truly vast manpower pool...and when that came into crisis, truly bad stuff could happen...

 

[say1988]

The traitors were practically allowed to get off scot free not even Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee were punished in any serious manner.

Well, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Adams etc. got off scot free, in fact are lauded as heroes, but since "treason is treason"....

I don't know the constitution, but your quote isn't quite accurate since each state seceeded from the Union, and therefore weren't states (though I am not sure of the order in which things occur). And this is in a country created on the basis of self-determination and through rebellion less than 100 years prior.

I believe that there is no morally justified reason for the US government to resist secession by force. Yes the South did fire the first shots, but I think it can be agreed upon that the Union wasn't going to just let them go.

 

[Camikaze]

He was also a cold blooded murderer but to each his own I guess.

Yeah. Just to clarify, I wasn't saying I supported his actions, but more that he was viewed as a hero, and an admirable loser.

Killing people taking part in an abomination and a crime against humanity is fully justified. John Brown is a hero a martyr and a freedom fighter.

This I can't agree with. He may've been viewed as a hero, but he was fundamentally a murderer. Killing people to stop people possibly being killed makes no sense, and is just sheer hypocrisy.

Does it matter? Do you shed a tear for all the poor Japanese and German civilians who died in carpet bombings of World War II? Sometimes colletral damage is necessary.

Yes. Dachs got in before me mentioning the Dresden bombings.

If John Brown hadn't martyred himself than Southern fear and Northern emotion wouldn't have been provoked sufficiently enough for the war to happen.

Secondly, John Brown was not the only spark that started the Civil War. It certainly was a contributing factor, but I would've put Lincoln's election as a bigger reason.


For another entry into the admirable losers category, how about a group. And the most famous 'admirable losers' in this part of the world. The ANZACs at Gallipoli.

 

[shortguy]

I had a history professor who tried to attribute that quality to their love for Stoicism. Unless my understand of that philosophy is horribly wrong, and I don't think that it is, that's a bit of a stretch.

I don't see how that could be the case; after all, the Romans showed that resilience long before Greek culture became en vogue in the 2nd C. BC.