Your Ad Here
2010 November 28 Sunday
Genetic Closeness Reduces South Korean Anger At North?

B. R. Myers, an American professor at Dongseo University in South Korea, says South Koreans feel less indignation about North Korean attacks than you might expect because the attacks come from fellow Koreans.

The North’s attack on Yeonpyeong Island has been more shocking to South Koreans, but not much more. At my local train station the morning after the attack, a grinning crowd watched coverage of the Asian Games in China on a giant TV screen. The same ethno-nationalism that makes South Koreans such avid followers of international sports also dilutes their indignation at their Northern brethren. South Korea’s left-wing press, which tends to shape young opinion, is describing the shelling of the island as the inevitable product of “misunderstandings” resulting from a lack of dialogue. Sadly, South Korea’s subdued response to such incidents makes them more likely to happen again. This poses a serious problem for the United States; we have already been drawn into one war on the peninsula because our ally seemed unlikely to defend itself.

So then do the South Koreans suffer from Stockholm Syndrome enhanced by their genetic affinity for North Koreans? Have South Koreans come to feel captive to North Korean caprice? Not able to get away from the North Koreans? Captured by them? In love with their abusers?

That feeling of not being able to get away from North Korea looks set to continue. Aidan Carter-Smith argues in Foreign Policy that the hope China will rein in North Korea has no base in reality.

But China barely talks the talk, and no way does it walk the walk. Has Washington missed the new lovefest between Pyongyang and Beijing? A friendship forged in blood, as close as lips and teeth. The old slogans and warmth are back. And it's for real. Better believe it.

We saw it first this summer. Not only did China's skepticism on the sinking of the Cheonan, the South Korean corvette, let North Korea off the hook, but its hostility to U.S.-South Korean naval exercises in the Yellow Sea -- Chinese coastal waters, apparently -- sent the allies scurrying ignominiously to hold their maneuvers on the other side of the peninsula.

Will the North Koreans keep upping the level of their attacks? If so, how will it end?

The Korean peninsula reminds me of Israel and the Arabs. While in the latter case there's not a genetic affinity between the parties it has the same decades-long tragedy that just gets tedious. One hopes for a sort of climax to the story because stories should have climaxes and ends. But while we tend to want to see events as stories (to the detriment of our ability to understand says Tyler Cowen) real life is not that way. Looked at that way movies and novels give us a misleading view of the nature of reality and human events.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2010 November 28 11:23 AM  Korea


Comments
Jeff Maylor said at November 28, 2010 3:40 PM:

That's an fascinating idea about the genetic closeness between North and South Korea and how it might cool conflict. But on the other hand, they did already fight a long war against each other (as did Vietnam). And of course, Whites in America fought each other viciously during the Civil War. Were they as related as N and S Korea? And of course, Europeans fought each other in 2 major wars against each other in the 20th century, but maybe they weren't as genetically close as the Koreans. This is a fascinating dimension to war and conflicts. I've always wondered if there was an ethnic dimension to Mao's slaughter of so many millions. Was there anything different about the Chinese he killed? What about the people Stalin and Lenin killed?

Matt said at November 28, 2010 4:19 PM:

South Koreans see any war with North Korea as a loss. If they fight a war with NK and win, then they need to take care of their impoverished racial brethren, and despite genetic closeness, Korean pragmatism is far stronger. Koreans have a tendency towards emotional outburst that doesn't lead to actions.

Mark said at November 28, 2010 10:16 PM:

"That's an fascinating idea about the genetic closeness between North and South Korea and how it might cool conflict. But on the other hand, they did already fight a long war against each other (as did Vietnam)."

This is true though apparently most of the killing during the Korean War was done through US bombing which killed up to 30% of North Korea's population:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20101127&articleId=22131

And there was Chinese participation in the Korean War as well. So external involvement was a factor.

Jeff Maylor said at November 30, 2010 4:41 AM:

Mark said: "This is true though apparently most of the killing during the Korean War was done through US bombing which killed up to 30% of North Korea's population"

Interesting idea but the website you cited seems to be pretty Leftist with a lot of JFK conspiracy stories along with stories about how the "national security state" got MLK, although the Leftism is balanced out by a lot of New World Order conspiracy stuff on the other hand. So I'd like a more objective source for that 30% figure.

Mark said at November 30, 2010 12:15 PM:

"Interesting idea but the website you cited seems to be pretty Leftist with a lot of JFK conspiracy stories along with stories about how the "national security state" got MLK, although the Leftism is balanced out by a lot of New World Order conspiracy stuff on the other hand. So I'd like a more objective source for that 30% figure."

The article on the website has some references which if you google around a bit leads to more objective sources:

http://books.google.com/books?id=EgIW-uGMA50C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA81#v=onepage&q&f=false

LeMay himself admits around 20%. Estimates of civilian deaths range from 2 to 5 million. North Korea's population was around 10 million at the start of the Korean War.

Mark said at November 30, 2010 12:31 PM:

It'd be interesting to know if killing off such a huge swath of the populace had an effect at the genetic level. Obviously it had an effect on the cultural evolution of North Korea following the war, but perhaps it had an effect at the genetic level as well. Maybe those with more of an innate "bunker mentality" survived, thus reflecting this mentality or at least a greater willingness to put up with a bunker society.

Jeff Maylor said at November 30, 2010 6:09 PM:

OK Mark, the first time could have been an innocent mistake but not the second time. That book you cited is titled "Strategic Terror" and is basically a Leftwing attack on the West and the US. The professor that wrote it, Beau Grosscup, accuses the US and Britain of being terroristic nations. He is basically writing from a Marxist perspective. He accuses the West of things like deliberately "bombing brown people". And when you say things like LeMay "admits" to some number, that insinuates he is some kind of war criminal making a confession. He wasn't. He was a great patriot.

The number of North Koreans killed, military and civilian, range all over the place. The Marxist sources put it incredibly high, and no one seems to have a reasonable number (since it was in a totalitarian dictatorship). So no one really knows, the estimates vary by over a million from each other, but most are in a substantially lower range.

And ultimately, the moral responsibility for those deaths lie with the North Korean Communists and the Soviet Union. The northern part of Korea (under the command of Soviet troops) failed to have free elections and a communist regime was installed. There were skirmishes provoked by the North and the situation escalated into open warfare when North Korean forces invaded South Korea on 25 June 1950. So a communist nation invaded a much freer South Korea under US protection. So let's not assign moral blame for the deaths in North Korea to the US or LeMay. That was the fault of the Soviets and the Communists in North Korea.

Mark said at November 30, 2010 7:33 PM:

Maylor,

I think you're the one that's mistaken.

You seem to think I actually care or something.

I don't care at all about how many North Koreans died. Nor about the "moral responsibility" and "moral blame" which is meaningless as far as I'm concerned. They're just a bunch of gnomes on the other side of the planet to me.

As for whether LeMay was a "war criminal" or not, well that's really another meaningless question. Had we lost WWII, he surely would've been a "war criminal" to the Axis and would've been formally rendered as such.

I'm just interested in the figures, the facts of the matter. I understand that sources on this kind of thing are very politicized.

The LeMay quote is from this New Yorker article which you can read if you have a subscription:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1995/06/19/1995_06_19_047_TNY_CARDS_000370012

If you don't have a subscription, you can read the same quote here in a book by the same author:

http://books.google.com/books?id=f113iCcn87wC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA443#v=onepage&q&f=false

LeMay, who certainly can't be considered a "Marxist source," seems to be as good source on this as any and he puts it at an "incredibly high" 20% which isn't a "substantially lower range."

Jeff Maylor said at November 30, 2010 8:33 PM:

Mark, I don't think we can say that whoever is morally responsible for the death of millions of civilians is a "meaningless" question - not when Left wing sites are trying to pin blame on America. And we can't be agnostic about whether LeMay is a war criminal - that is in effect, to condemn him. He was, in fact, an American hero that helped destroy our totalitarian enemies in wartime. There was a real moral difference between the Soviet Union and the United States, by any serious moral system. To subscribe to some cynical view, that in effect says, there is no way to morally discriminate between the actions of Stalin and Truman, that it just depends on who wins, is to say our government was morally no different than a communist one. And that's what I want to avoid.

Now in that quote, if accurate, he was arguing that it would have been wiser to attack with greater strength in the beginning, because by delaying and drawing the war out more people died because of starvation and exposure. And that all seems reasonable. Although the quote the author claims LeMay made would have put the number killed far above what most objective ranges put it at. So, I just warn everyone that everywhere you look on the internet that quote is referenced almost exclusively by anti-American website for propaganda against the "evils" of US bombing.

Mark said at November 30, 2010 11:19 PM:

Maylor,

Well most of us here including myself are Right-wing types. This has nothing to do with being "anti-America" or "blaming America."

I'm just not much interested in the "morals" here. If you are, that's fine. Like I said before, I'm strictly interested in the figures here, the facts of the matter. I'm interested in the numbers.

LeMay's statement doesn't seem that out of the ordinary or extreme. This mainstream general history of the war puts North Korean civilian casualties at 2 million, which is right at LeMay's "20%" figure.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vMNj64cQ5BYC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false

Mark said at November 30, 2010 11:26 PM:

By the way, "official" Auschwitz figures range from 6 million to 66,206:

http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/history/auschwitz-figures.htm

Nobody seems to ever question or assess these various figures so it's kind of amusing to see people get in a tizzy over some figure General LeMay himself claimed regarding "the forgotten war."

Jeff Maylor said at November 30, 2010 11:39 PM:

Well Mark, with regard to Auschwitz, no one questions the higher numbers because it is career suicide to do so, as I'm sure you know. I don't know what the real truth is but some legitimate debate should be allowed. But in the case of LeMay and the US Military, this is ofen used as a claim against America, when taking out of context. I'm sure you don't want to give credibility to Marxists sites, do you?

And yes, I am interested in morals. It isn't some irrelevant social construct with no meaning. It's being studied by the most hardened of evolutionary psychologists. Among other things, it speaks to the legitimacy of our institutions and our history, especially when Left wing groups misuse statistics to make a case against America. Maybe you find the site of Arlington a yawner, but personally I am deeply moved by it. So, it's hard for me to believe a right winger spends so much time on Marxist blogs and reading anti-American books. But Okie Dokie.

Mark said at December 1, 2010 12:18 AM:

Maylor,

Your patriotard moralizing is getting tiring. I've seen your comments at KMac's blog. Trust me, I'm much further to the right than you are.

The "Global Research" site isn't right-wing but it is critical of globalization, and I'm anti-globalism, like I think a genuine Far Right is and should be.

As for the 3 books I've linked to, none of them have I read. I googled for sources on the figures and found those books. Also only one of those books is arguably "anti-American."

Anyway, the various sources seem pretty legitimate and LeMay's remark doesn't seem that off the mark or out of the ordinary.

Jeff Maylor said at December 1, 2010 12:56 AM:

Yeah once again, people who use the term "patriotard" - meant to caricature "overly patriotic" Americans who are suckers for "the system" - usually come from a very Leftwing or anti-American viewpoint. Sites likes Global Research deal in anti-American conspiracy theories. They drone on about conjectured "false flag" operations, blah blah blah. That's not about principled devotion to the Constitution. Your indifference to the issue of American honor, morality and accusations of war criminality by US commanders doesn't sound that healthy.

Mark said at December 1, 2010 1:14 AM:

Well hard right WN types like myself use the term "patriotard" because it applies. If you don't like it, that's too bad. From a WN perspective, patriotard attitudes don't "sound that healthy."

And you're right that "Global Research" is not about "principled devotion to the Constitution." It's a Canadian website. It's about anti-globalization.

Anyway none of this is relevant to my original interest in the figures. If you have any sources showing that LeMay lied, or that the LeMay quote in question was made up, or that 20% is an extreme figure, please provide them. I'd be interested to see them.

Sam said at December 1, 2010 2:17 AM:

I'm with Mark. The US seems to have been taken over by people with very different agendas from the mass of the American people. I say to hell with South Korean and North Korea. We should leave.

Jeff Maylor said at December 1, 2010 2:35 AM:

Well Mark and Sam, on the point of whether we should be on the Korean peninsula, I'll have to agree, it's probably a waste of time (or worse). I'm not opposed to projecting American power around the world if it serves American interests (and I don't just mean the interests of a parasitical elite). But our presence there is potentially very dangerous for the US. Of course, with our exit, Japan, China and other Asian powers may become more aggressive with all the attendant problems that implies.

If the US was acting on behalf of Americans - real Americans - than I could favor the US being dominant in a lot of places around the world. But sadly, as we all know, our elites use American lives and treasure to serve their own interests to the detriment of Americans.

Jeff Maylor said at December 1, 2010 3:58 AM:

But Sam, just to be clear, I wasn't arguing the point you made, so I am not sure what you mean. I just wanted it to be very clear that LeMay was not a war criminal and that North Korea was a communist regime that was responsible for the trouble it brought on itself by attacking South Korea back in 1950. In other words, the US should in no way be morally blamed for the deaths in North Korea. You don't disagree with that do you?

Northvegr said at December 1, 2010 12:10 PM:

If you target civilians and respond disproportionately, then yeah, I think that can be a war crime and you can be morally blamed. Doesn't mean you should get all the moral blame or be solely blamed. Lemay and the allies probably did commit war crimes during WW2 and can be morally blamed somewhat for the civilian deaths from the firebombings and stuff. And it looks like the same could probably be said of them during the Korean War. Churchill ordered the first attacks on civilian targets. The allied attack on Dresden alone killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Jeff Maylor said at December 1, 2010 12:28 PM:

Northvegr, I disagree. Once a totalitarian government starts a war, it exposes it's population to attack. That's why people should be very careful what kind of government they allow to grow in their midst. Other nations will have no choice but to attack whatever targets will bring the attacker nation to a halt. If a Nazi or Communist regime is on the rampage, how can other nations be expected to mince around delicately picking targets that specifically WON'T inflict maximum damage. It is necessary for the survival of the civilized nations to attack with whatever force is needed - in fact they have a moral obligation to do so.

This is the danger of relativistic morality. It's also the danger of the so-called hardened cynical view that claims not to care about morality. Notice that both end up giving aid and comfort to totalitarian regimes and directing moral blame toward the US!

Northvegr said at December 1, 2010 1:08 PM:

I'm not the relativist here since I'm the one that's trying to ascribe moral blame objectively to specific actions whatever side they may be on. The US regime has formally invaded 2 countries and attacked others in the past 10 years and elements of the regime have been trying/are trying/wish to invade others. It has been on the rampage and is likely to continue being on the rampage. By your logic, other nations, particularly those that are likely to be targets of this rampage in some form in the future such as Iran, Russia, China, etc., would be justified in raining firebombs and nukes on US civilian centers.

Jeff Maylor said at December 1, 2010 3:27 PM:

OK, Northvegr if you are trying to compare US military operations to a "rampage" that nations like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany engaged in you have left the bounds of reality. You fail to make the most fundamental distinction between lawful constitutional nations and totalitarian dictatorships. The US was not the moral equivalent of the USSR. North Korea is not the moral equivalent of South Korea. US actions have been against unlawful socialist regimes and dictators that shot their way to power. A free nation has a right to invade or destroy a collectivist dictatorship if that's truly in it's national interest (since the national interest of a free country is derived from free civilized lawful individuals).

For you to refer to the US attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq as "rampages" displays a shocking failure of moral perspective. Those invasions may or may not have been prudent, but the lawless dictatorships of Afghanistan and Iraq had no claim against an invasion by a free country. You absolutely cannot compare the US action in Afghanistan to North Korea's invasion of South Korea.

Northvegr said at December 1, 2010 5:05 PM:

I disagree. I don't think a "free nation" has the right to invade or destroy a "collectivist dictatorship" or any other sovereign entity just because it believes it's in its "national interest" to do so. And even if it did, that wouldn't mean it could deliberately target civilians and act disproportionately. You can be morally justified in fighting a war, but that doesn't mean that every action you take in fighting the war is morally blameless. Lemay and the allies probably did commit war crimes during WW2 and can be morally blamed somewhat for the civilian deaths from the firebombings and stuff. And it looks like the same could probably be said of them during the Korean War. That doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't morally justified in fighting those wars. Just that some of their actions were war crimes and that they can be morally blamed for some of the civilian deaths.

I do think the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were unlawful rampages, and that by your logic, other nations, particularly those that are likely to be targets of this rampage in some form in the future such as Iran, Russia, China, etc., would be justified in raining firebombs and nukes on US civilian centers. Note that I don't agree with this "logic." I believe those nations would be committing war crimes and should be morally blamed if they ever did such a thing.

Randall Parker said at December 1, 2010 8:29 PM:

Guys,

When considering whether to invade other countries consider a few factors:

1) Will we change an invaded country> See my post: History Of American Interventions Bodes Poorly For Democracy.

2) Invasions are extremely expensive. We passed the half trillion dollar cost point in Iraq a few years ago. The long term costs of the Iraq invasion are probably on the order of over $2 trillion. Plus, the brain damage costs are far higher than any war cost estimates I've seen.

3) There are ways to protect ourselves from terrorism that are far far far cheaper that the US government refuses to do.

Jeff Maylor said at December 1, 2010 9:30 PM:

Yes, Randall, I agree that it is not always prudent to invade lawless dictatorships - meaning it doesn't really serve our self interest or promote the change we want. I mentioned earlier that prudence is an important issue, which is what your three points boil down to. However, this discussion has been mainly about the morality of invading dictatorships and whether brutal attacks on a dictatorship, including it's civilian population, constitute a war crime, once we believe that such a move is prudent.

And again, I would disagree with anyone that said we cannot massively bomb a civilian population in a dictatorship, that is a threat to us, if military leaders feel that such an approach was the best strategic move. There are situations where it is necessary to break the will of the opponent. Wars can drag on forever as long as they are just sending their young males to fight at a distance. When the war is brought home to those that are enabling the war, then it may bring things to a swifter conclusion. And it may be necessary in order to win and thus secure our own freedom and security. So let's not confuse the prudence of a particular war with the legal and moral right to wage said war.

And the doctrine that war must in some way be "proportional" incorrect. The purpose of a war is to break the will of an enemy, and to destroy their material capacity to fight. If there is to be a victor, then in some sense it will have to be disproportionate. What makes proportionality so sacred? Tit for tat wars can drag on for literally centuries. I think we also have to be careful about romanticizing "innocent" civilians as if they were all just innocent bystanders. Again, they are usually enabling the regime if not actively supporting it. It is regrettable that truly innocent people who may oppose their regime die, but the free country still has the moral right to defend itself.

And again, China and Russia would not be justified in invading the US for any reason, because both of those regimes are lawless dictatorships ruled by men who shot their way to power. Such regimes have no "rights". Again, there is no moral equivalence between the US and Iran or China. It's not just a matter of how a dictator might "feel". He has no right to take the action of bombing the US because he has no rights in the matter whatsoever.

How anyone could find moral equivalence between Russia, a lawless dictatorship run by a gang of thugs bombing US cities on the one hand, and the US military bombing cities inside a dictatorship because it's military commanders believe this is the best way to win the war and secure freedom on the other, is beyond me.

Northvegr said at December 1, 2010 11:09 PM:

Again, I disagree.

I don't think a "free nation" has the right to invade or destroy a "dictatorship" or any other sovereign entity just because it believes such a move is "prudent." And even if it did, that wouldn't mean it could deliberately target civilians and act disproportionately. You can have the legal and moral right to wage a war, and the moral right to defend yourself, but that doesn't mean that every single action you take in prosecuting a war is necessarily morally blameless. Even if Lemay and the allies were morally justified in fighting their wars, that doesn't necessarily mean that every single one of their actions was morally blameless. Some of their actions in WW2 and Korea were war crimes and they can be morally blamed somewhat for the civilian deaths from the firebombings and stuff.

According to your logic, Russia, China, Iran, etc. could point to myriad features of the US today such as out of control crime, lack of border control, population replacement, military adventurism, foreign invasions, corruption, etc., label the US a "lawless dictatorship," and then commence firebombing and nuking US civilians (who aren't "innocent" bystanders but are enabling if not actively supporting the US regime) until every last US civilian is exterminated. Please note that personally I don't agree with this "logic." I believe these nations would be committing grave war crimes and should be morally blamed if they ever did this.

Jeff Maylor said at December 2, 2010 12:24 AM:

Ok, why are you putting "free nation" and "dictatorship" in quotes? You seem to imply there is no real objective difference between them. Maybe you aren't a relativist after all, but a subjectivist.

You keep arguing about what "they" could say in Russia or China about us if we attack some country, because somehow that would loosen the moral laws that bind these dictators now. But these are dictators who shot their way to power. The moment they felt they could attack the US and gain power they would, regardless of what our actions in the past had been. Stalin never said, "oh gee, I would love to invade that province but they have always been so peaceful. If only they would attack someone, that would give me cover to dominate them". And note that there is a difference between attacking a country that is a totalitarian threat versus attacking a country to ESTABLISH a totalitarian dictatorship. Everyone gets that.

Your continued implication that the US is in some sense a rogue nation that is in the same league of North Korea is disturbing. Whatever problems we have with our borders, no one on earth confuses the US with North Korea and you know that. These are not borderline cases. The US is not as free as it once was but it is still largely free. If you think we are such a terrible place that engages in such despicable actions, why are you living here? Try living in Iran for a few years and learn the difference between a "free nation" and a "dictatorship".

You don't want to grasp that there is a real, material difference between the US on the one hand and Iran, North Korea and the old Soviet Union on the other. And if you are going to attack US military commanders as war criminals, you should be more specific about what those crimes are, not just "killing civilians" in a time of war.

Northvegr said at December 2, 2010 1:24 AM:

I'm using them in quotes because you use those terms vaguely and for emotive purposes. I never said that the US was a "rogue nation." I never said that there weren't any differences among the US, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc.

Here's what I did say:

"I don't think a "free nation" has the right to invade or destroy a "dictatorship" or any other sovereign entity just because it believes such a move is "prudent." And even if it did, that wouldn't mean it could deliberately target civilians and act disproportionately. You can have the legal and moral right to wage a war, and the moral right to defend yourself, but that doesn't mean that every single action you take in prosecuting a war is necessarily morally blameless."

You're committing the fallacy of division. Just because something is true of a thing doesn't mean that it's true of all of its parts. You might have the moral right to wage a war (the whole), but that doesn't mean all of the actions (the parts) you take during the war are morally blameless. Lemay and the allies may have been morally justified in fighting their wars (the whole), some of their actions (the parts) in WW2 and Korea were war crimes and they can be morally blamed somewhat for the civilian deaths from the firebombings and stuff.

Northvegr said at December 2, 2010 1:34 AM:

Also you seem to believe in guilt by association and implication ("I think we also have to be careful about romanticizing "innocent" civilians as if they were all just innocent bystanders. Again, they are usually enabling the regime if not actively supporting it.") and thus according to your logic the US is implicated in some sense as a "rogue nation" and "totalitarian dictatorship" due to its alliance with Stalin and the Soviet Union during WW2.

Jeff Maylor said at December 2, 2010 1:52 AM:

Well again, I accept that in the course of a moral war a war crime could be committed. But again, what specifically are you accusing LeMay of then? What specific war crimes? This is virtually the same thing as accusing someone of murder, so it is a very serious accusation against one of the most prominent military men in American history. What actions did he take that were criminal? I mean not just vague references to "killing a lot of people". Were they unilateral actions on his part? Did the commanders above him know about it? Did the President? If so, was the President a war criminal as well? Given that most of the bombings were known by the public, is the entire country full of knowing war criminals? Why didn't Left wing senators try and have him prosecuted?

And I would have preferred for the US not to have been allied with the Soviet Union in WWII, however, a free nation fighting for it's freedom and existence, has a right and an obligation to get one thug to help destroy another thug. We were facing a world of Communist and Fascist nations. No one confused the US with a communist regime due to the temporary collaboration with the USSR.

And there is nothing vague about the differences between the US and USSR. Are you really unable to distinguish them? We are talking about two very dissimilar countries at all. North Korea is quite different than South Korea. You seem to be able to find all kinds of fault with the US - it's easy for you to equate America with a thug nation. Do you even particularly like the US?

Northvegr said at December 2, 2010 2:27 AM:

Again, I never said that there were no differences between the US and USSR. I never said North Korea isn't different from South Korea. I never said America is a "thug nation."

Here's what I did say:

"I don't think a "free nation" has the right to invade or destroy a "dictatorship" or any other sovereign entity just because it believes such a move is "prudent." And even if it did, that wouldn't mean it could deliberately target civilians and act disproportionately. You can have the legal and moral right to wage a war, and the moral right to defend yourself, but that doesn't mean that every single action you take in prosecuting a war is necessarily morally blameless."

Regarding Lemay and the allies, here's what I said:

"If you target civilians and respond disproportionately, then yeah, I think that can be a war crime and you can be morally blamed. Doesn't mean you should get all the moral blame or be solely blamed. Lemay and the allies probably did commit war crimes during WW2 and can be morally blamed somewhat for the civilian deaths from the firebombings and stuff. And it looks like the same could probably be said of them during the Korean War. Churchill ordered the first attacks on civilian targets. The allied attack on Dresden alone killed hundreds of thousands of civilians."

Regarding your questions about Lemay and others (such as Churchill, Bomber Harris, etc.), I think they're important and need to be fully and objectively addressed and investigated.

Jeff Maylor said at December 2, 2010 2:52 AM:

So, Northvegr, you'd like to see FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Churchill, the Joint Chiefs of Staff during and after World War II, all of them investigated for war crimes?

Northvegr said at December 2, 2010 3:22 AM:

I said the questions need to be fully and objectively addressed and investigated. Whether this entails or necessitates some kind of formal investigation for war crimes, I don't know.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©