Mr. Churchill Says

The things you find in newly declassified documents:

Winston Churchill wanted the RAF to wipe out German villages in retaliation for the massacre of Czech civilians in the village of Lidice, wartime cabinet documents have revealed….

Churchill abandoned the plan only in the face of opposition from cabinet colleagues, who feared that the lives of aircrews would be placed needlessly at risk. Clement Attlee, the dominions secretary and future Labour prime minister, said he believed it unwise "to enter into competition in frightfulness with the Germans". On June 15 Churchill conceded, saying: "My instinct is strongly the other way … I submit unwillingly to the view of cabinet against."

Churchill was reportedly much more savage in his blog, where he suggested that his cabinet was "on the other side" and asked, "Don't they know there's a war on?"

Comments

[SM]

he suggested that his cabinet was "on the other side"

The correct phrase is "objectively pro-nazi".

[digamma]

Gold.

[Ruthless]

Maybe, if Winnie had actually had a blog, he could have purged some of that meanness he felt, without actually putting lives at risk.

[JD]

Uff da, I just finished posting about this at my ISP. Basically, I don't see why this is "news" or shocking. We already know that the Allies actually did mercilessly bomb German civilian populations.

[Ed]

I think survivors of the Blitz -- you know, actual Brits -- might be less flippant.

[tomWright]

Churchill had a blog?

Who knew?!

What a bleeding-edge-of-technology kind of guy he was.

[SR]

So "Winnie" was actually his screen-name?

[Jesse Walker]

Basically, I don't see why this is "news" or shocking. We already know that the Allies actually did mercilessly bomb German civilian populations.

Why is it "news"? Because it's new information.

Why is it "shocking"? I didn't say it was.

[digamma]

I think survivors of the Blitz -- you know, actual Brits -- might be less flippant.

This is a story of survivors of the Blitz -- you know, actual Brits -- who actually had the brains to realize that the most brutal course of action in a war isn't always the wisest.

[peterd]

God save the Kinks references.

[Jeff P.]

There's a line in Orson Welles The Stranger (I think) where Welles' character observes that we haven't had any problems with Carthage in quite a while.

[matthew hogan]

Breaking the Orwell subsection of Godwin's Law:

"Nevertheless, a world in which it is wrong to murder an individual civilian and right to drop a thousand tons of high explosive on a residential area does sometimes make me wonder whether this earth of ours is not a loony bin made use of by some other planet." (1943, sometime after the Blitz thing)

http://www.sozialistische-klassiker.org/Orwell/Orwelle7.html

[Jennifer]

I remember reading that, ironically enough, bombing German cities actually helped the German war effort, because the Nazis never did succeed in fully switching the country over to a wartime economy. As late as '43 or '44 there were something like 1.5 million domestic household servants in Germany (as opposed to 1.5 million additional munitions workers, for example.) And there were many Germans who held wartime-useless jobs like restaurant waiters and the like. But when their restaurants were bombed they generally were not rebuilt, so the former workers were now free to get a job related to the war effort.

Even when fighting a war, cool heads are better to have than angry people who simply wish to lash out, without considering first whether that would actually help.

[joe]

I always wondered how the British government could look at the steadfast response of Londoners through the Blitz, and still believe that city-busting raids would break German morale.

[Ruthless]

Anticipation of shock and awe will always be more shocking and awing than actual shocking and awing.

[Warren]

By the end of the war, it was realized that strategic bombing had little to no success in crippling the German industrial capability. Eventually the goal of every big raid was to raise a firestorm, with the intention of creating massive civilian casualties and hardships.

[matthew hogan]

This little appreciated movie with William Holden, The Counterfeit Traitor, relates in its course how a key anti-Nazi German spy was lost due to her revulsion at Allied bombing.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000228EJ0/reasonmagazinea-20/

This is a movie in which Holden plays a curmudgeonly cynic who is led by circusmtances and otuside forces into acting with greater courage, resourcefulness, and honor than he himself suspected he had.

Holden made 5540 of those movies. (eg Stalag 17, Network, World of Suzie Wong)

[Amanda Hugginkiss]

What's the fuss about? It's not like Germans are human.

[BG]

Churchill had a blog?

Who knew?!

What a bleeding-edge-of-technology kind of guy he was.

It was a very primative blog with frequent technical mishaps. Many comments about events on the North African front were posted three or four times due to server problems.

[R C Dean]

By the end of the war, it was realized that strategic bombing had little to no success in crippling the German industrial capability.

That is simply not true. After air supremacy was achieved and precision bombing became the predominant tactic, German wartime production was crippled. WWII was the first war in which anything like strategic bombing was possible. That the first few tries were not successful is hardly surprising.

Whilst strategic bombing failed to make a significant economic impact on the Germany throughout most of the war, it was unquestionably an important factor in Germany?s economic collapse in the last 12 months of the war.

http://www.historic-battles.com/Articles/can_the_allies_strategic_bombing.htm

[Ken Shultz]

I always wondered how the British government could look at the steadfast response of Londoners through the Blitz, and still believe that city-busting raids would break German morale.

Makes me think of one of my favorite Shakespeare quotes:

QUEEN ELIZABETH:

O, thou well-skilled in curses, stay awhile,
And teach me how to curse mine enemies.

QUEEN MARGARET:

Forbear to sleep the nights, and fast the days;
Compare dead happiness with living woe;
Think that thy babes were sweeter than they were,
And he that slew them fouler than he is.
Bettering thy loss makes the bad causer worse.
Revolving this will teach thee how to curse.

----Richard III, Act IV, Scene iv, lines 115-122

Thinking, "...he that slew them fouler than he is." obviously doesn't work in this context--I can't think of anyone fouler.

...but we are talkin' Operation Gomorrah and Dresden here, right?

[BG's corrections dept.]

While reading BG's 12:13 post, visualise the first four lines of text as all in italics.

[henry]

The Lew Rockwell boys (and girls) give Churchill hell regularly, along with that other government-approved icon, Lincoln, and the more recently deified (by "conservatives", actually neo-conservatives), FDR.

[url]http://www.mises.org/story/1450[/url]

[Murray "Superboy" Babitch]

It appears that Walker is trying to identify an ironic, wry analogy between Churchill's proposed bombing and a US response to Islamic nutcakes, jihadists, fascists, whatever you like.

So the next question is, what has the US done that rises (lowers?) to the immorality of deliberately targeting civilians, thus making the above analogy apt?

[paul]

I was reading FDR's blog where he said they initially listened to the pacifists and tried to treat the Axis Powers as a law enforcement problem, but that none of them would grab a subpoena and go arrest Hitler. He called them chickenlawyers.

[James]

Churchill badly bungled WW1 by taking sides against merchant ship convoys in 1915. Not until 1917 did the British institute convoys, and only then at the behest of Lloyd George, who threatened to clean house at the Admiralty if they didn't get their act together. This folly cost the British Government billions of pounds as they were insuring most of the ships under a very generous war emergency scheme. This, more than any other particular folly, is what kept the Empire hovering near bankruptcy from 1918 to 1939.

Which led to the infamous "Ten-Year Rule," instituted by Churchill when he returned to government after the war. The Rule declared that no war was to be anticipated for ten years unless the armed forces could show otherwise. This led to all sorts of fanciful (comical at this distance) declarations by the Navy that they were quite likely to find themselves fighting the US and dire warnings by the RAF that France was increasingly bellicose, all in the name of obtaining funds from the strapped British treasuries.

Churchill's insistence that Britain confront Nazi Germany immediately led to Chamberlain's rash promises to Poland, which Britain could never in a million years make good on. Hitler wanted war with the Soviet Union, not Britain, and smarter strategists would have let him have it. He got it anyway. As one commentator noted, "what atrocity did World War Two prevent?" Britain and France would have done better to wait, but Churchill never had a head for that kind of calculation.

So the postwar world of the Soviet Union in Central Europe and a feeble, bankrupt British Empire are Churchill's fault as much as anyone's. It's no surprise that those nostalgic for the Evil Empire lionize him so.

[SR]

"Many comments about events on the North African front were posted three or four times due to server problems."

Thank God new and improved server squirrels have been bred so that those problems are a thing of the past!

[Warren]

Murray,
I nominate the whole, rounding up thousands of natives on baseless suspicion, holding them indefinitely on the other side of the planet, with no outside communication, and torturing them for sport, policy.

[BG]

Murray

I don't think Walker is claiming that the US military has done anything in the war on terror which deserves to be put in the same category as deliberate targeting of innocent people. I think he was just making fun of paranoid-sounding claims that anyone who criticizes US military or foreign policy is out to destroy America or ensure America's defeat.

[Warren]

R C,
I won't quibble on the success of strategic bombing. My point is, that we (or at least the British) were deliberately attempting to induce firestorms with the express goal of civilian hardship.

[joe]

I'll qubble, RC.

Your post seems to go to the issue of the damage done by the bombing to German's economy as a whole - its ability to feed and clothe its people.

While Waren is addressing the damage done specifically to the arms industry.

In fact, Germany built more fighters in 1943 than in 1942, and more in 1944 than in 1943.

[Seamus]

Winston Churchill? Isn't he the guy who first used poison gas on Iraqi Kurds and Arabs? (http://vitw.org/archives/839)

[Ken Shultz]

Many of your are more knowledgeable about Churchill (among other things) than most. To most people, I suspect, Churchill is a symbol of standing up to Nazis even as they rained destruction down upon his head. I've used that symbol myself on occasion to make a point, but I suspect it can be useful for whichever side want to use it.

I suspect it's been misappropriated by those who argued for the invasion of Iraq as a reaction to terrorism. ...all the while painting the opposition as some kind of Chamberlain, a symbol for appeasement. I tend to see that Churchill symbol, standing defiant against the Blitz, as the opposite of what Bush seems to have done.

...Sell out the Constitution in the face of danger. ...but then I'm biased.

[Johnny Clarke]

Hmm, it occurs to me that some future government could use all the hoopla as an excuse not to release old records because they could be used in historically-based arguments to discredit the (then) current regime and "aid the enemy". Actually, this may already be happening.
Just a thought.

[kgsam]

It is interesting to me how, for instance, the strategic planners on our side expect the other side to have completely different reactions to an act than is expected of our side.
We shall not be cowed, but they will be.

[Timothy]

We already know that the Allies actually did mercilessly bomb German civilian populations.

Suck it, Dresden!

[Jesse Walker]

It appears that Walker is trying to identify an ironic, wry analogy between Churchill's proposed bombing and a US response to Islamic nutcakes, jihadists, fascists, whatever you like.

The analogy is between the people who realized Churchill's plan would be not just wrong but counterproductive, and those who make the same point about torture, covert manipulation of the Iraqi press, etc. Recognizing this parallel does not require you to think waterboarding is morally equivalent to wiping out whole villages. (Though I suspect that if you told the defenders of waterboarding that Bush had proposed a village-elimination policy in Iraq, several would rush to cast aspersions on anyone who objected.)

[fyodor]

This makes me think of the book Catch-22. Particularly a part in which the bombers are being briefed on a mission in which they're going to bomb a defenseless little village. One of the bombers protests that this will be an awful thing to do and he talks about all the unsuspecting innocents killed for nothing. The briefing officer barks back that he's worked damn hard to find this group easy bombing runs so the protesting bomber had better shut up or they'll have to bomb someplace a lot riskier instead. The main protagonist, Yossarian, prays to himself that the protesting bomber shuts up.

[Curious]

Aren't we all watching the same History Chnnel shows? Why the arguement?

[rob]

"(Though I suspect that if you told the defenders of waterboarding that Bush had proposed a village-elimination policy in Iraq, several would rush to cast aspersions on anyone who objected.)"

Jesse, I'm willing to bet that I can find someone out there who holds Opinion A who is also loopy enough to argue Opinion B. That doesn't make it any less of a straw man for all of the rest of the people who hold Opinion A and still think Opinion B is loopy as hell.

For example, it's a bit tiresome to me that every time I point out that waterboarding and torture aren't necessarily the same thing, certain people leap to thinking that I believe waterboarding is a good idea. Or, as you seem to be doing, pointing out that anyone who doesn't see waterboarding as torture would probably also be willing to eschew the Law Of Armed Conflict by attacking civilians.

Frankly, the fact that waterboarding is the harshest tactic - and is therefore used as proof that the military is torturing people - actually goes a long way to argue that most of what's done is quite tame compared to actual torture.

[Ken Shultz]

The last time I asked you whether you thought waterboarding was torture or "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment, you responded, "nope". So, just for the sake of argument, rob, let's go crazy and assume that waterboarding isn't torture--what is it then?

...and why, pray tell, should we be glad if Bush's cabinet, unlike Churchill's, egged the President on?

[JD]

How would the plan have been counterproductive? Not very constructive or useful in a military sense, I'll grant you, but counterproductive? It's not like Germany was on the verge of giving up in '42, and flattening a few villages would have stiffened their spine, or that the Allies would have fallen apart in finger-pointing and recrimination. Don't get me wrong, bombing civilians, especially just because you can, is horrendous, but we shouldn't forget that all sides in WWII were on a total war footing (although Germany less than others), and in a situation like that, the entire country is a valid target. (For some arguable definition of "valid", once you've accepted the morality of the whole total war situation.)

Anyway, I think the analogy to torture is, well, tortured.

[Eric the .5b]

Jesse, I'm willing to bet that I can find someone out there who holds Opinion A who is also loopy enough to argue Opinion B. That doesn't make it any less of a straw man for all of the rest of the people who hold Opinion A and still think Opinion B is loopy as hell.

For instance, there are people who oppose the US's presence in Iraq who also believe Al Queda was perfectly justified on 9/11/2001. I think everyone posting and commenting here who is against the US's presence in Iraq reacts to such an association (for example, by random trolls who pop up and comment once) with justified scorn.

[Qbryzan]

For example, it's a bit tiresome to me that every time I point out that waterboarding and torture aren't necessarily the same thing, certain people leap to thinking that I believe waterboarding is a good idea.

How would you define torture? And why do you say they "aren't necessarily" the same thing?

disclaimer: I in no way mean to imply that you think waterboarding is dandy.

[Jesse Walker]

For example, it's a bit tiresome to me that every time I point out that waterboarding and torture aren't necessarily the same thing, certain people leap to thinking that I believe waterboarding is a good idea. Or, as you seem to be doing, pointing out that anyone who doesn't see waterboarding as torture would probably also be willing to eschew the Law Of Armed Conflict by attacking civilians.

If I said that "anyone" who defends waterboarding believes it's a good idea to target civilians, you'd have a point.

[Mike H.]

It's been impossible, for a very long time now, to have any sort of reasoned debate on anything to do with the war.

Let the straw men fly. Do not attempt to restrain the straw men. You're either accepting of any extreme argument on the grounds that someone, somewhere holds Loony Opinion X, or you're against... everyone.

Christ.

[ChrisO]

Is there anything more entertaining than second-guessing World War II?

[rmark]

The discussion of the strategic bombing of WW2 really needs to be broken down into early, mid, and late war periods. Changing technology and tactics make it difficult to treat all periods the same.
1. early war - unescorted two engine bombers with light defensive power failing to find lightly defended targets (in day or night), with heavy losses to defending fighters (random bombing).
2. mid war - unescorted 4 engine bombers with heavy defensive power finding but failing to accurately bomb well defended targets, with heavy losses to defending fighters (area bombing).
3. late war - escorted 4 engine bombers with hevy defensive firepower and increasing armor finding and destoying well defended targets, with defending fighters hobbled by less able pilots, low fuel supplies and often outclassed by newer escort fighters (closer to precision bombing).

In the early period, strategic bombing really didn't take place due to poor equipment and training. By mid war it was the one way the Western allies could support Russia by tying up men and equipment that could go to the Eastern front. By late war the loss of fuel plants became critical to bombing, reducing German pilot training to minimal levels.

[Harry Turtledove]

Is there anything more entertaining than second-guessing World War II?

Yes: Second-guessing the Civil War first.

[joe]

rmark, did you mean "light losses to defending fighters" in your "1.early war?"

[Kevin Carson]

Wasn't Churchill also the one who reacted to a Bedouin uprising by asking "what's the point of having poison gas if you can't drop it on some niggers," or something like that?

But hey, at least it wasn't "against his own people."

[rmark]

no, heavy losses. The early war was fought with mostly pre-war bomber designs that had few defensive guns, little armor, and before self-sealing fuel tanks.

[SR]

"(Though I suspect that if you told the defenders of waterboarding that Bush had proposed a village-elimination policy in Iraq, several would rush to cast aspersions on anyone who objected.)"

Oh, you don't have to suspect, Jesse:

Bill O'Reilly: mediamatters.org/items/200512070012

Joseph Farah: worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37878

Barbara Simpson (scroll to bottom): worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37879

Jack Wheeler: newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/2/100042.shtml

My favorite for its sheer repulsive hypocrisy is Farah's:

In other words, we may need to flatten Fallujah. We may need to destroy it. We may need to grind it, pulverize it and salt the soil, as the Romans did with troublesome enemies.

Quite frankly, we need to make an example out of Fallujah.

Here's a chance for justice. Here's an opportunity to show the people of the Middle East it doesn't pay to resort to barbarism and terrorism.

[Captain Holly]

Is there anything more entertaining than second-guessing World War II?

Yes: Second-guessing the Civil War first.

I'm in.

What would have happened if Lee had listened to Longstreet at Gettysburg and took a defense, rather than offensive, posture?

After this, it's the War of 1812.

[Ken Shultz]

When I read your comment, Carson, it made me think of Cavanaugh's tribute to Reagan, which still makes me laugh every time I read it.

...Not that Churchill's remark was funny, if indeed he said that.

[rob]

Jesse - Point taken.

"The last time I asked you whether you thought waterboarding was torture or "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment, you responded, "nope". So, just for the sake of argument, rob, let's go crazy and assume that waterboarding isn't torture--what is it then?" - Ken Schultz

I thought you were done responding to me, Ken. If only that were so... To be honest, my "Nope" was written quite flippantly. Waterboarding doesn't fit the definition of torture the same way that say, amputation of limbs or beheading does, or any long list of other things that actually constitute torture.

But hey, Ken, let's go crazy and assume that waterboarding is torture. Would you rather be tortured by the US or by its enemies?

"For instance, there are people who oppose the US's presence in Iraq who also believe Al Queda was perfectly justified on 9/11/2001. I think everyone posting and commenting here who is against the US's presence in Iraq reacts to such an association (for example, by random trolls who pop up and comment once) with justified scorn." - Eric the .5b

Dude! My point EXACTLY!

[Amanda Hugginkiss]

Is there anything more entertaining than second-guessing World War II?

Yes: Second-guessing the Civil War first.

Whilst I am often appalled at the historical revisionism I read on H&R whenever the discussion turns to these two conflicts, by the same token I feel relieved because it demonstrates there is not a dogmatic libertarian script when it comes to the subject of war. I believe libertarians (me included) will almost universally dismiss, say, the Spanish-American War or US entry into WW I, but disagreement over the CW or WWII shows that people can still be libertarian without being uber-isolationist lunatics like those over at the aforementioned LewRockwell.com.

In other words, there are pragmatic libertarians who realize war is *sometimes* the only answer to provocation, and then there are the idealists who think every armed conflict involving the United States is the fault of warmongering politicians. (Ducks)

[joe]

rmark,

Now I gotcha. I thought you were referring to the losses suffered by the defending fighters themselves.

See, "...losses to defending fighters..." confused me.

[Jennifer]

Waterboarding doesn't fit the definition of torture the same way that say, amputation of limbs or beheading does, or any long list of other things that actually constitute torture.

Beheading isn't torture; it's murder. Amputation isn't torture; it's maiming.

But hey, Ken, let's go crazy and assume that waterboarding is torture. Would you rather be tortured by the US or by its enemies?

Whichever one is less painful.

[Jennifer]

I imagine that when people are tortured by US soldiers, they are extremely grateful that they are being tortured by decent men who love democracy and freedom, rather than being tortured by evil people with no respect for human rights. Because it's just awful to be tortured by the wrong kind of people.

And when that innocent taxi-driver named Dilawar was tortured to death in Afghanistan (even our own military admits he was an innocent man who was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time), I am certain his final thoughts were as follows: "Thank you, Allah, for allowing me the sublime privilege of being beaten to death by Americans. Being tortured by the Taliban is horrible, but being tortured by the Americans is bliss."

[ChrisO]

Newsflash: Winston Churchill was not a perfect human being!

Film at 11.

Next, you'll tell me that Abe Lincoln enjoyed kicking cats, and then I'm gonna cry.

[Murray "Superboy" Babitch]

Just a moment, not so fast with the "not morally equivalent" caveat:

Walker's posts expicitly equate opposition to today's US detainee policy (and paying off the Iraqi media) with Atlee's opposition to slaughtering German civilians in WWII.

1) Slaughtering civilians is wrong in any context.
2) "Torture" and paying off Iraqi media sources is not even in the same ballpark as #1, even if the said "torture" is in fact "torture," and not something less. Regardless, there's a recognizable ongoing debate re: whether US policy is in fact "torture."

Atlee's position was unassailable in any situation. Walker's is not, given that the nature of the offenses he protests are not even close to the comparative offense. I think his analogy is unfounded.

[Winnie]

Wasn't Churchill also the one who reacted to a Bedouin uprising by asking "what's the point of having poison gas if you can't drop it on some niggers," or something like that?

No, I said "wogs". Niggers are from Africa (and the West Indies).

[R C Dean]

Your post seems to go to the issue of the damage done by the bombing to German's economy as a whole - its ability to feed and clothe its people.

Well, no. From the article above:

The resulting shortages of oil related raw materials crippled the German economy and greatly reduced armaments output

joe continues:

In fact, Germany built more fighters in 1943 than in 1942, and more in 1944 than in 1943.

Not sure about fighters specifically, but in fact the Germans had to shift aircraft production to fighters midway through the war to try to stave off the strategic bombing campaign. So even if fighter production went up, you can be sure production of every other kind of aircraft went down.

[Jesse Walker]

I think I should start following Tim's policy of not explaining my jokes. No matter how funny I think they are when I write them, the humor never survives a couple rounds of earnest debate.

But having gone this far, I might as well follow this through to the end. So, Babitch: The target of the joke isn't people who disagree with me about torture, press manipulation, and so on. It's the people who insist that this makes me "on the other side" etc.

[Stogie]

You bozos can armchair-quarterback Churchill when you have had a cigar named after you.

[Monica Lewinsky]

You bozos can armchair-quarterback Churchill when you have had a cigar named after you.

Churchill could have done a lot better.

[thoreau]

Amanda-

When I posted as Harry Turtledove, I wasn't engaging in the sort of Civil War second-guessing that some on this forum like (where they ask whether the outcome should have gone the other way). I was referring to the fact that Turtledove has written about a dozen novels based on the premise that the South won the Civil War.

One was a stand-alone novel with a scifi premise (time travelers give the South better weapons), the rest are a series based on the "...and for want of a message the battle was lost..." notion. In the real Civil War a message was lost at some point, which may have changed the outcome of a battle. In Turtledove's novel, somebody says to the messenger "Hey, you dropped something!" and events unfold from there. He's currently writing about WWII, with the US and Confederacy on opposite sides.

So he's combined those forms of second guessing: First he second guesses the Civil War, now he's second guessing WWII. (He also second guessed WWI.)

[Jennifer]

He's currently writing about WWII, with the US and Confederacy on opposite sides.

Who does he have allied with the Germans?

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

In his alternative history, France and England became allies of the Confederacy in the 1800's. But the US and Germany won WWI, so there is no Hitler in Germany. Instead, there's a very angry WWI veteran running the Confederacy. He blames their defeat on the black population. And he's sort of right: In the WWI novels, the US armed black rebels in the Confederacy.

Anyway, the very angry Confederate leader is planning a final solution to the minority population...

[Jennifer]

Thoreau, I think I'm going to have to look up some of this guy's work. It sounds very interesting.

[thoreau]

Be warned, Jennifer: The writing isn't always very good. The day-to-day details get repetitive, and some of the characters get boring.

But I always want to know what happens next. His characters are a mixed bag, but his story remains captivating to me.

[Murray "Superboy" Babitch]

Walker, It's Cavanaugh's world...we just live in it. I figured you were probably at least half joking. Just wanted to make sure it was not less than 50%. Another good point is: Who the fuck am I to question your posts?

This Turtledove nutcase sounds like Jefferson Davis's wet dream. I knew thoreau had to have some wacky proclivities.

[rob]

RC Dean,
Don't hold joe accountable for those piddling details. He can't be corrected regarding the difference between a surrender and a cease-fire...

Jennifer,
"Whichever is less painful" is probably the US, wouldn't you say? Unless you draw the really unlucky straw that Dilawar and a few others have, your odds are certainly better with the US. Y'know, where they'll feed you and allow the Red Cross to check on you - as opposed to filming videos of you getting your head lopped off...

There have been arguably 108 deaths from a population of 65,000 prisoners (possibly low #'s since I'm citing an article from March 2005), of which "26 had been investigated as criminal homicides involving possible abuse."

Altho I would agree that one murder is too many, it's a bit much to expect that there will be zero instances of abuse when people are given absolute authority over other people. That doesn't make it policy, that just means that US soldiers also have some bad people in uniform.

Another "21 are attributed to 'justifiable homicide,' when U.S. troops used deadly force against rioting, escaping or threatening prisoners and investigations found the troops acted appropriately."

Of that 108, "29 are attributed to suspected natural causes or accident" and "22 died during an insurgent mortar attack on April 6, 2004, on Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq."

Even if you're just betting the odds, that means that 0.16615384615384615 percent of those being held in US military prisons have died. (Of that number, there are potentially 51 who were killed, making for 0.07846153846153846%.)

Actually, I think it's safe to say that you've got at least as much chance of getting killed by "friendly fire" or of dying of natural causes as you do of being killed in custody. I'd prefer to be a captive of the US military, where horrible things happen in captivity, but nothing like the scale of say, the US general prison population...

That's not going to alleviate your suffering or the suffering of your family if you're the one who gets abused or killed, but the odds do favor those who did it getting punished... Certainly moreso than if you get beheaded on TV.

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/03/16/national/w111607S94.DTL

[Jennifer]

Jennifer, "Whichever is less painful" is probably the US, wouldn't you say? Unless you draw the really unlucky straw that Dilawar and a few others have, your odds are certainly better with the US. Y'know, where they'll feed you and allow the Red Cross to check on you - as opposed to filming videos of you getting your head lopped off...

Rob, your question was not "Between al-Qaeda and the US, who would you rather be imprisoned by," but "who would you rather be tortured by?" My answer stands.

[rob]

"Here's a chance for justice. Here's an opportunity to show the people of the Middle East it doesn't pay to resort to barbarism and terrorism." SR quoting Farah

Good thing that there are military commanders on the ground with a much better plan, that doesn't include sowing the ground with salt, completely wiping a city off the map, etc... Shew!

[rob]

"Rob, your question was not 'Between al-Qaeda and the US, who would you rather be imprisoned by,' but 'who would you rather be tortured by?' My answer stands." - Jennifer

OK by me. It's your extremities...

[BG]

Beheading isn't torture; it's murder. Amputation isn't torture; it's maiming.

To be fair, amputation could arguably be torture if the person is conscious and fully able to feel pain when it occurs. Also the same is true of beheading if it occurs slowly enough.

with respect to waterboarding and torture:

It seems that most people here agree that:

- torture necessarily involves some physical or psychological suffering and/or discomfort

- not all things that involve physical or psychological suffering and/or discomfort are severe enough to constitute torture

- waterboarding involves some physical suffering and/or discomfort

- there are some things worse than waterboarding (such as perhaps some things from the movie Hostel)

- neither waterboarding nor tactics from Hostel should be used to interrogate detainees

The debate seems to be over whether waterboarding is in the category "torture" or the category "things that cause some physical or psychological suffering and/or discomfort but are not severe enough to constitute torture"

I am not sure how useful of a debate that is without a working definition of torture. Of course i might have misinterpreted the debate by assuming that most people agree with me on the five aforementioned propositions.

[SM]

thoreau,

"In the real Civil War a message was lost at some point, which may have changed the outcome of a battle."

That would be Lee's "Special Order 191" - I know, it sounds like something from Star Trek. James McPherson has an interesting counterfactual based on the secure delivery of this order in the book "What if America" - his theory is that Union and Confederate positions would have been reversed at Gettysberg, leading to a Confederate victory. Though his counter factual leads to the dissolution of Union, not an outright victory for the Confederates as Turtledove seems to be imagining.

[joe]

It's funny rob is still bringing up the surrender/cease fire issue, since he admitted I was right on that thread.

You smell a little French to me, troll boy.

[joe]

RC,

It's been a while since I finished Speer's autobiography (he became Armaments Minister), but he went into great detail about how German armaments manufacturing continued to grow until the allies overran the Ruhr. The damage done to manufacturing overall was heavy, but capacity was shifted away from civilian operations to military ones.

Which makes the point even more strongly that the widespread bombing inflicted great hardships on the civilian population, without really damaging armaments manufacturing.

But hey, rob had a quibble with my phrasing in a past post, so I guess you should just ignore what the German Minister of Armaments during World War II had to say about the manufacture of armaments in Germany during World War II.

[Ken Shultz]

Isn't there something like a newbie-troll phenomenon. ...Don't highly partisan people become troll-like when they first encounter Threadland?

We should denounce them and their troll like behavior when they're troll like. We should denounce torture apologists for their behavior too.

...but people can change. ...and if someone start's comin' around--changin' their position, we should welcome 'em rather than scarin' 'em back under their bridges.

[Amanda Hugginkiss]

thoreau,

No worries! I wasn't accusing you/Harry Turtledove of historical revision. In fact I was essentially agreeing with your post that second-guessing WW II and second-guessing the CW go hand in hand.

And I got the Turtledove reference. I'm a fan of alt-history myself.

Of course, only now when this thread is totally beat do I actually have time to respond...

[rob]

"It's funny rob is still bringing up the surrender/cease fire issue, since he admitted I was right on that thread." - joe

Where and when was THAT? I'd LOVE to see that. But you can't quote what wasn't said, so I guess like other outlandish things you've claimed, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to come up with evidence for the unproveable.

"You smell a little French to me," - joe

Are you trying to say that I smell nice? Well, thanks, but that doesn't give you free pass on posting nonsense.

"troll boy." - joe

Always a sign that you've run out of anything constructive to say.