Quote:
Originally Posted by EnI  Actually -a lesson from such terrific actions. To differ right from wrong. And after so many years it's always an opportunity to do some reflection & evaluate some things.
That's why history is so important - to learn the time line of causes & consequences, and to learn & evaluate some decisions from the history. Or to even present some counter arguments - since (as I said) history is written by the winers, and therefore it's biased. |
I'm sure we all have a certain idea of right and wrong on a more general level when it comes to historical events, but I feel we should be very careful about imposing it either on individual persons or individual decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnI Btw, From your point of view ("not moralizing by modern standards") even Nazism could be legitimized, or Holocaust, or crimes done by eg. communist regimes etc. Since at that specific time when those bad things happen there was "a right reason to do it." |
To legitimize would be to make a moral judgment, i.e. what I said should not be done. We simply cannot put ourselves in the place of someone who lived in a time which was different from ours, or someone who had endured things we haven't. Neither do we know what facts (and what assumptions) their actions were based on, or what would have happened if a particular decision (such as dropping the bomb) would not have been made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnI Imagine Germans or Russians or Japanese or Americans advocating & legitimizing acts done by their armies during WWII. Not a good thing. Hence self-criticism is needed, and some acts done by our grandfathers should be condemned. 
Yes, I somehow UNDERSTAND why some acts were done, but that still does not prevent me to condemn them.
By not condemning such acts we would send a message to the young & future generations that doing such acts is justified in some cases. And some people would feel to be entitled to do such things - since being legitimized.
Get it? |
I get what you're trying to say, but I respectfully disagree. I feel that to condemn everything (as you seem to suggest) would be to see things in absolutes, in black and white. What we should try to understand is
why these people made the decisions they did, and
why other people chose to carry them out (and what other people thought of them at the time). I feel that simply condemning - rather than asking 'why' - is much more likely to encourage people to 'feel entitled' to do similar things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnI Why should the winning side be immune from being criticized - especially when doing war crimes just like the losing side were doing. Just because they won the war? Just because they didn't start the war? Just because they were labeled as "good guys".
I just don't buy it. |
They should not. They were criticized for their actions (or the lack of them) during and after the war by the people of their time. Similarly, I feel that we have (to an extent) the right criticize the things which go on in the world today.