tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5641070693386699677..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Operation Mincemeat Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54134817277885529692018-07-13T15:53:29.455-04:002018-07-13T15:53:29.455-04:00"What if it was the body of an enemy soldier ..."What if it was the body of an enemy soldier they collected on a battlefield?"<br /><br />Thanks, Michael, that's a good question! Also, you may have a good point!<br /><br />My thinking is it depends on a few different factors. In the case of WWII, however, I think we can more or less safely assume a few things: <br /><br />1. A just war was waged by the Allies against the Axis.<br />2. The enemy combatants were voluntarily fighting rather than there being forced conscription (though toward the end of the war there was forced conscription in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, I think; I think only the Soviets forced soldiers to fight among the Allies).<br />3. The Allies during WWII treated the Axis enemy combatants far better than the Axis treated Allied combatants (with the exception of Stalin's Soviet Union which the other Allies knew to be duplicitous so I'll leave the Soviets out of the picture). Take the Bataan death march, the Burmese Railway (aka Death Railway), what the Imperial Japanese would do to captured soldiers, etc.<br />4. Indeed, the Allies treated civilians far better than the Axis treated civilians. I think Victor Davis Hanson put it something like (paraphrasing): If we look at the sheer number of casualties suffered, WWII could be summed up as the Allies mostly killing Axis soldiers and the Axis mostly killing civilians. Take the terrible atrocities inflicted by the Axis against civilians like the Holocaust, the Nanking massacre, "comfort" women, etc. <br />5. The Axis conducted horrific human experimentation, tortures, and other cruelties. The Allies did as well, but my understanding is the main differnce was that when this happened among the Allies, the soldier or group of soldiers was punished, whereas the Axis actively promoted it. For the Allies it was an aberration, while for the Axis it was the norm (e.g. Nazi medical experiments, Unit 731). <br /><br />If Axis treat others like this, then any "rights" enemy combatants have or expected ethical treatment of enemy combatants would arguably have been forfeited, at least to a degree.<br /><br />That doesn't mean the Allies can do whatever they like without ethical restrictions. After all, the Allies are not like the Axis. The Allies should not stoop to their levels of evil. <br /><br />However, it may very well mean it's warranted to take certain actions one wouldn't normally be justified to take. It may mean wading into murkier ethical waters than under more "normal" circumstances (if there are ever any "normal" circumstances in war). In this respect, I could see it being justified that we use the body of an enemy soldier as you pointed out.<br /><br />(By the way, I think much of this is similar in principle to how the Israelites had to deal with such an evil and implaccable foe as the various Canaanites.)Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46081364535847967262018-07-13T06:37:21.986-04:002018-07-13T06:37:21.986-04:00What if it was the body of an enemy soldier they c...What if it was the body of an enemy soldier they collected on a battlefield?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09225391328802972286noreply@blogger.com