Thread: war

Was watching Smithsonian channel couple weeks ago. They had a documentary on about the French village Oradour-sur-Glane, a village basically wiped off the map by German forces in WWII. Over 600 inhabitants massacred. Usually I can stomach that stuff but something got to me watching that. The realization that we can commit such violence upon one another and get away with it. Some of the scenes were taken from a movie that depicted what some survivors and eyewitness accounts pieced together. Absolutely sickening if you've ever seen it. If anyone knows the movie I'd appreciate the title. Here's a WIKI version of what happened.

This happens a lot. Nazi - Lidice (Czech), American -MyLai (Viet Nam), Hutus in Rwanda killing Tutsis. With a little research you could find more.

Originally Posted by mathman

This happens a lot. Nazi - Lidice (Czech), American -MyLai (Viet Nam), Hutus in Rwanda killing Tutsis. With a little research you could find more.

I understand that. Reprisals generally. 600+ lives for one in this case. Do you think the French resistance should have borne some responsibility? Especially knowing the German penchant for severe reprisal.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I understand that. Reprisals generally. 600+ lives for one in this case. Do you think the French resistance should have borne some responsibility? Especially knowing the German penchant for severe reprisal.

An impossible question
When do we loose the moral right to resist perceived immoral treatment? When the"game" is not worth the candle?
We beat a tactical retreat?

How confident can we be of the justness of our cause?

Churchill attacked the French fleet after France capitulated causing French sailors to die.

Indecision on his part could have been disastrous but his conscience might have been clear.

Originally Posted by geordief

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I understand that. Reprisals generally. 600+ lives for one in this case. Do you think the French resistance should have borne some responsibility? Especially knowing the German penchant for severe reprisal.

An impossible question
When do we loose the moral right to resist perceived immoral treatment? When the"game" is not worth the candle?
We beat a tactical retreat?

How confident can we be of the justness of our cause?

Churchill attacked the French fleet after France capitulated causing French sailors to die.

Indecision on his part could have been disastrous but his conscience might have been clear.

Yep, it is impossible. The Allies bombed the occupied countries, French soldiers on D-Day were advised by their commanders that invasion forces would be firing on their homeland, etc. It's war. In the end, the responsibility rests with the occupiers IMHO....as in nothing happens as long as you don't start the damn war.

I wonder what it was like to be a member of the Maquis. Knowing that your actions would initiate the deaths of civilians, possibly members of your own family and friends. I suppose in the eyes of the occupiers, civilians are enemy soldiers. Any or all of them has the potential of causing your death. For a resistance fighter I think you have to look at it the same way in that every one of your fellow citizens is a soldier. Thus collateral civilian deaths seem inevitable, there can be no remorse or guilt associated with actions against an enemy. It is as they say, a facet of war.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Was watching Smithsonian channel couple weeks ago. They had a documentary on about the French village Oradour-sur-Glane, a village basically wiped off the map by German forces in WWII. Over 600 inhabitants massacred. Usually I can stomach that stuff but something got to me watching that. The realization that we can commit such violence upon one another and get away with it. Some of the scenes were taken from a movie that depicted what some survivors and eyewitness accounts pieced together. Absolutely sickening if you've ever seen it. If anyone knows the movie I'd appreciate the title. Here's a WIKI version of what happened.

War is sick but it almost seems like human nature sadly. I wonder if there is a single people out there that does not carry blood on their hands.

Originally Posted by mmatt9876

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Was watching Smithsonian channel couple weeks ago. They had a documentary on about the French village Oradour-sur-Glane, a village basically wiped off the map by German forces in WWII. Over 600 inhabitants massacred. Usually I can stomach that stuff but something got to me watching that. The realization that we can commit such violence upon one another and get away with it. Some of the scenes were taken from a movie that depicted what some survivors and eyewitness accounts pieced together. Absolutely sickening if you've ever seen it. If anyone knows the movie I'd appreciate the title. Here's a WIKI version of what happened.

War is sick but it almost seems like human nature sadly. I wonder if there is a single people out there that does not carry blood on their hands.

Historically I think that would be along the same lines as all people, no matter what their race, have an ancestor who was once part of a conquered people. Seems to me that the opposite would be true also and thus all of us have ancestors who killed people.

Now if your talking about each of us personally, I would think that somewhere along the line we've all benefited from by contributing to someone's untimely death. People get killed trying to catch your dinner or maybe a child died making your shoes or people died providing the illegal drug you just purchased. Is that what you're intimating?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by mmatt9876

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Was watching Smithsonian channel couple weeks ago. They had a documentary on about the French village Oradour-sur-Glane, a village basically wiped off the map by German forces in WWII. Over 600 inhabitants massacred. Usually I can stomach that stuff but something got to me watching that. The realization that we can commit such violence upon one another and get away with it. Some of the scenes were taken from a movie that depicted what some survivors and eyewitness accounts pieced together. Absolutely sickening if you've ever seen it. If anyone knows the movie I'd appreciate the title. Here's a WIKI version of what happened.

War is sick but it almost seems like human nature sadly. I wonder if there is a single people out there that does not carry blood on their hands.

Historically I think that would be along the same lines as all people, no matter what their race, have an ancestor who was once part of a conquered people. Seems to me that the opposite would be true also and thus all of us have ancestors who killed people.

Now if your talking about each of us personally, I would think that somewhere along the line we've all benefited from by contributing to someone's untimely death. People get killed trying to catch your dinner or maybe a child died making your shoes or people died providing the illegal drug you just purchased. Is that what you're intimating?

Basically I mean what you mentioned the first time concerning all of us possibly being related to a conqueror in the same way we all may be related to someone who was conquered.

I was not exactly thinking that each of us personally carries blood on or hands beyond perhaps a people we belong to committing murder in the past but I am sure people die all the time contributing to something we have benefited from sadly.

Personally however I would not blame somebody who is related to someone else who committed murder in the past guilty of the same crime in any sense.

Originally Posted by mmatt9876

Basically I mean what you mentioned the first time concerning all of us possibly being related to a conqueror in the same way we all may be related to someone who was conquered.

I was not exactly thinking that each of us personally carries blood on or hands beyond perhaps a people we belong to committing murder in the past but I am sure people die all the time contributing to something we have benefited from sadly.

Personally however I would not blame somebody who is related to someone else who committed murder in the past guilty of the same crime in any sense.

Not only people but the ground we live on. How much of it has been shaped by war? I'm sure my story isn't much different from anyone else's. I live on the Niagara Peninsula and 205 years ago, before Canada became an official country, a war was fought here against the Americans. I'm surrounded by battlefield sites and just down the road from me is a military graveyard from that era in which members of both sides are interred. It's a hallowed sombre site, flying the flags of Canada & USA. I guess what I'm saying is that I could easily be an American if things had turned out different back then. War & fate go hand in hand it seems.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by mmatt9876

Basically I mean what you mentioned the first time concerning all of us possibly being related to a conqueror in the same way we all may be related to someone who was conquered.

I was not exactly thinking that each of us personally carries blood on or hands beyond perhaps a people we belong to committing murder in the past but I am sure people die all the time contributing to something we have benefited from sadly.

Personally however I would not blame somebody who is related to someone else who committed murder in the past guilty of the same crime in any sense.

Not only people but the ground we live on. How much of it has been shaped by war? I'm sure my story isn't much different from anyone else's. I live on the Niagara Peninsula and 205 years ago, before Canada became an official country, a war was fought here against the Americans. I'm surrounded by battlefield sites and just down the road from me is a military graveyard from that era in which members of both sides are interred. It's a hallowed sombre site, flying the flags of Canada & USA. I guess what I'm saying is that I could easily be an American if things had turned out different back then. War & fate go hand in hand it seems.

War shapes and has shaped so much. People, territory, history, and so on and so forth. Borders have been shifted, created, and destroyed by war so much over all of human history. In humankind's history you were often either a conqueror, were conquered and surrendered, or were conquered and did not surrender and were destroyed. I guess the fate of the people rests in part in the hands of the conqueror.

I would like to share that I do not believe a person should carry any blame or feel any guilt for a crime committed in the past by their people or an ancestor because the individual is a separate and unique existing, acting, and thinking entity from their people as a whole, past or present, or ancestor. We must learn from the past and not be haunted by it.

Originally Posted by mmatt9876

War is sick but it almost seems like human nature sadly.

We are tribal. There will always be war as long as there is a 'we' and a 'they'. We as a species are not ready to discard our differences and embrace our commonalities.


Here in the west (as well as anywhere else), we wage war, not simply for food, but to maintain our standard-of-living.
No one is about to give up their cable TV so that every 3rd world nation can simply have clean water. And our governments know that, so they fight the battles for us.
They may start the battles, but it is we citizens who ultimately reap the spoils.

Originally Posted by mmatt9876

I would like to share that I do not believe a person should carry any blame or feel any guilt for a crime committed in the past by their people or an ancestor because the individual is a separate and unique existing, acting, and thinking entity from their people as a whole, past or present, or ancestor. We must learn from the past and not be haunted by it.

The other side of that coin is: given what we have now (in the form of wealth) are we willing to actively fix the current problems - even if it's not driven by guilt?

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

The other side of that coin is: given what we have now (in the form of wealth) are we willing to actively fix the current problems - even if it's not driven by guilt?

I sense Godwin's Law approaching. I assume you're talking military aggression problems since this is a thread about war. Weren't both sides trying to fix a perceived problem in WWII, sans guilt?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

The other side of that coin is: given what we have now (in the form of wealth) are we willing to actively fix the current problems - even if it's not driven by guilt?

I sense Godwin's Law approaching. I assume you're talking military aggression problems since this is a thread about war. Weren't both sides trying to fix a perceived problem in WWII, sans guilt?

No. I just just reacting to mmatt.

He's right, one should not act out of guilt. I was just raising the idea of not individuals using that as a excuse to not act at all. (eg. world charity orgs.)

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

Originally Posted by mmatt9876

War is sick but it almost seems like human nature sadly.

We are tribal. There will always be war as long as there is a 'we' and a 'they'. We as a species are not ready to discard our differences and embrace our commonalities.


Here in the west (as well as anywhere else), we wage war, not simply for food, but to maintain our standard-of-living.
No one is about to give up their cable TV so that every 3rd world nation can simply have clean water. And our governments know that, so they fight the battles for us.
They may start the battles, but it is we citizens who ultimately reap the spoils.

I think humankind finding unity and cooperation will go a long way towards ending wars between our peoples and improving the standard of living of third world countries because we would be thinking of and treating one another as equals and governments and peoples would be serving the needs and interests of everyone. It is much easier said than done though. In the end there is only so much space and resources available for people.

Originally Posted by DaveC426913

Originally Posted by mmatt9876

I would like to share that I do not believe a person should carry any blame or feel any guilt for a crime committed in the past by their people or an ancestor because the individual is a separate and unique existing, acting, and thinking entity from their people as a whole, past or present, or ancestor. We must learn from the past and not be haunted by it.

The other side of that coin is: given what we have now (in the form of wealth) are we willing to actively fix the current problems - even if it's not driven by guilt?

The world has so many problems that are either too difficult or too expensive to fix easily. Guilt should not be a factor, only empathy.

During war, is it good military strategy for an occupier to commit atrocities against the civilian population? I know there's the risk of losing the war and going to trial for war crimes but in the terms of tactics, is it a good thing to reinforce the resolve of a resistance or that of an allied enemy waging war against you.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

During war, is it good military strategy for an occupier to commit atrocities against the civilian population?

I don't believe so. As an occupier, you should be trying to turn the locals to your side. Convince them that their original country/government has abandoned them and doesn't care about them. That their original country only sees them as pawns, while you the occupier see them as so much more. Change the narrative essentially. You are not the occupier, you are the liberator.

Originally Posted by Falconer360

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

During war, is it good military strategy for an occupier to commit atrocities against the civilian population?

I don't believe so. As an occupier, you should be trying to turn the locals to your side. Convince them that their original country/government has abandoned them and doesn't care about them. That their original country only sees them as pawns, while you the occupier see them as so much more. Change the narrative essentially. You are not the occupier, you are the liberator.

I think you're touching the propaganda issue. Would be hard to believe the sincerity of an occupier promising good things when they're committing atrocities inside the occupied zones.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Falconer360

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

During war, is it good military strategy for an occupier to commit atrocities against the civilian population?

I don't believe so. As an occupier, you should be trying to turn the locals to your side. Convince them that their original country/government has abandoned them and doesn't care about them. That their original country only sees them as pawns, while you the occupier see them as so much more. Change the narrative essentially. You are not the occupier, you are the liberator.

I think you're touching the propaganda issue. Would be hard to believe the sincerity of an occupier promising good things when they're committing atrocities inside the occupied zones.

That's kind of my point though, that in order for an occupiers propaganda to be most effective it is not good military strategy to commit atrocities against the civilian population.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

During war, is it good military strategy for an occupier to commit atrocities against the civilian population? I know there's the risk of losing the war and going to trial for war crimes but in the terms of tactics, is it a good thing to reinforce the resolve of a resistance or that of an allied enemy waging war against you.

I believe that besides killing unarmed civilians that may or may not even have anything to do with supporting or voting for the government you are fighting being in power being cruel, killing civilians will only sow hatred for your government among the populace you are seeking to conquer as news spreads of your crimes against their brothers and sisters and you will probably have no hope of winning over and then successfully ruling over the rest of the civilian population you are trying to conquer, other than through fear.