Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
How Torture Helped Win WWII
- Thread starter Puppycow
- Start date
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
False premise, false conclusion.
Yes, let's just say WWII was the most ethical in history, despite deliberate massacre of civilians by both sides, IQ testing soldiers to send the dumbest onto the beaches of Normandy and the ever controvertial topic of nuclear weapons.
FFS, we had a segregated military as we fought against ethnic supremecists.
No one's aruging that torture hasn't happened before. The arugment's much more over A) we were told it wasn't happening and then it turns out that's a lie and B) we're better than that.
Yes, let's just say WWII was the most ethical in history, despite deliberate massacre of civilians by both sides, IQ testing soldiers to send the dumbest onto the beaches of Normandy and the ever controvertial topic of nuclear weapons.
FFS, we had a segregated military as we fought against ethnic supremecists.
No one's aruging that torture hasn't happened before. The arugment's much more over A) we were told it wasn't happening and then it turns out that's a lie and B) we're better than that.
subvicepresident
Student
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 36
ComsatAngel2017
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2006
- Messages
- 897
The Dailybeast article is complete piffle. To assert that the D-Day landings depended on 19 turned agents is to simplify to the point of stupidity. Signals intelligence? Photographic reconnaissance? Press and media analysis? All far more significant than the turned agents. Admiral Canaris had gone as head of the Abwehr well before D-Day. Is there any proof that Churchill was aware of the turning of these 19 agents, rather than a bare assertion? As to how they were persuaded to co-operate, easy: "Work for us or we'll hang you".
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 10,219
Oh, damn.
I can't. I could have sworn I'd read a credible source regarding that, but some Googling doesn't turn anything up. I think I took hearsay for fact.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
The entire article is a fiction. Most of the double-agents used by the Allies turned themselves in the moment they arrived in the UK. In fact, none of the key German spies used for the Fortitude misinformation campaigns were German - most of them came from German-occupied territories, hated the Germans, and had volunteered to act as German spies specifically so they could be double agents.
One agent, a Spaniard called Juan Pujol, actually offered to act as a spy for the British in 1940 but his offer was refused so he volunteered to be a spy for the Germans, got sent to the UK, and immediately offered himself to the British again.
Part of the reason for this is that the German intelligence service - the Abwehr - were lead by one Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, an ardent anti-Nazi, who actively aided the allies. He hand-picked non-Nazis as his key staff, except for one whom he selected as a Nazi to keep the illusion of loyalty. The Abwehr were in fact involved in numerous attempts to assassinate Hitler. Canaris sent many of his agents to England with the express mission of becoming double agents for the British (effectively making them triple agents).
It's ironic, actually. The claim is made that even in this "most ethical of wars" we had to resort to the immoral for victory. The reality is that the very moral nature of our cause ensured that many of the "enemy" including the head of their intelligence agency, were on our side.
Wilhelm Canaris did everything he could to defeat the Nazi regime and their plans, even "recruiting" Jews and sending them on "missions" so they could escape persecution. He risked himself countless times to save allied agents. Eventually his actions drew suspicion and he was removed from his position. After the July 20 plot failed (Canaris couldn't take part as he was under house arrest) evidence was uncovered of at least 15 other plots against Hitler that Canaris had orchestrated, and on April 9, 1945 he was executed at Flossenbürg concentration camp.
After the war his subordinates testified to his courage, and his name appears on a memorial to members of the German resistance.
So, was it immoral torture that enabled us to use German intelligence agents against the Nazi regime? No. It was the righteousness of our cause.
The success of the WW2 allies in turning German agents is a perfect example of why we must, at all times, adhere to the principles of righteousness, justice, and morality. Even in war. Especially in war.
One agent, a Spaniard called Juan Pujol, actually offered to act as a spy for the British in 1940 but his offer was refused so he volunteered to be a spy for the Germans, got sent to the UK, and immediately offered himself to the British again.
Part of the reason for this is that the German intelligence service - the Abwehr - were lead by one Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, an ardent anti-Nazi, who actively aided the allies. He hand-picked non-Nazis as his key staff, except for one whom he selected as a Nazi to keep the illusion of loyalty. The Abwehr were in fact involved in numerous attempts to assassinate Hitler. Canaris sent many of his agents to England with the express mission of becoming double agents for the British (effectively making them triple agents).
It's ironic, actually. The claim is made that even in this "most ethical of wars" we had to resort to the immoral for victory. The reality is that the very moral nature of our cause ensured that many of the "enemy" including the head of their intelligence agency, were on our side.
Wilhelm Canaris did everything he could to defeat the Nazi regime and their plans, even "recruiting" Jews and sending them on "missions" so they could escape persecution. He risked himself countless times to save allied agents. Eventually his actions drew suspicion and he was removed from his position. After the July 20 plot failed (Canaris couldn't take part as he was under house arrest) evidence was uncovered of at least 15 other plots against Hitler that Canaris had orchestrated, and on April 9, 1945 he was executed at Flossenbürg concentration camp.
After the war his subordinates testified to his courage, and his name appears on a memorial to members of the German resistance.
So, was it immoral torture that enabled us to use German intelligence agents against the Nazi regime? No. It was the righteousness of our cause.
The success of the WW2 allies in turning German agents is a perfect example of why we must, at all times, adhere to the principles of righteousness, justice, and morality. Even in war. Especially in war.
He's being quite disingenuous with that remark - most people use that phrase in regards to the justification for why the Allies fought WWII, not about how the war itself was conducted.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Yes, WWII could only be considered "ethical" if you don't examine it too closely.
As with any war, I'm sure.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
It was all about oil!
1. US cuts off oil exports to Japan in retaliation for their attacks on China
2. Japan needs oil, so it makes plans to capture the oil reserves in the Pacific Rim.
3. Japan knocks out much of the US Pacific Fleet to clear the way for step 2.
4. US declares war on Japan
5. Germany declares war on US
6. ?
7. Profit!
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
I hate it when that happens!
Actually, there is evidence that the military used the smartest soldiers as cannon fodder towards the end of the war. My dad was in the ASTP, a fast-track training program for engineers and other much-needed professionals during the war. He took less than a year of classes before some general found out they were coddling these egg-headed college boys when they should be sending them into combat.
After a brief time in boot camp, the "college boys" were sent to the front lines as replacement troops (also known as "dead meat"). Many were killed in their boats before even firing a shot.
My father was lucky. He came down with hepatitis in Germany and was sent home.
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 3,418
Going to have to ask for a cite on that one too. I'm having a hard time accepting that "some general" would have the power based on his notion that they were "coddling" these men to re-formulate the fundamental and well established strategy of retaining and training soldiers in the engineering and professional jobs during wartime.
So basically, I'd like to see evidence for the claim that "the military used the smartest soldiers as cannon fodder..."
Thanks.
Re: Torture Helped Us Win WW2
No, it didn't...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html
For six decades, they held their silence.
The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.
When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.
Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners' cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.
"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.
Blunt criticism of modern enemy interrogations was a common refrain at the ceremonies held beside the Potomac River near Alexandria. Across the river, President Bush defended his administration's methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects during an Oval Office appearance.
Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
"I feel like the military is using us to say, 'We did spooky stuff then, so it's okay to do it now,' " said Arno Mayer, 81, a professor of European history at Princeton University
More...
No, it didn't...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100502492.html
For six decades, they held their silence.
The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.
When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.
Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners' cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.
"We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture," said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler's deputy, Rudolf Hess.
Blunt criticism of modern enemy interrogations was a common refrain at the ceremonies held beside the Potomac River near Alexandria. Across the river, President Bush defended his administration's methods of detaining and questioning terrorism suspects during an Oval Office appearance.
Several of the veterans, all men in their 80s and 90s, denounced the controversial techniques. And when the time came for them to accept honors from the Army's Freedom Team Salute, one veteran refused, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq and procedures that have been used at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
"I feel like the military is using us to say, 'We did spooky stuff then, so it's okay to do it now,' " said Arno Mayer, 81, a professor of European history at Princeton University
More...
Last edited:
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,951
Oh, damn.
I can't. I could have sworn I'd read a credible source regarding that, but some Googling doesn't turn anything up. I think I took hearsay for fact.
Among the first on the beaches at Normandy were FDR's son Quentin and Teddy Roosevelt, Jr. In fact, the latter was one of the Medal of Honor recipients for his actions on D-Day.
most ethical???
As an military history nerd with an european (Norwegian) perspective, I must say that I cannot remember ever having stumbled over a claim that WWII was fought in a special ethical way, and far from "the most ethical". So how this can be "generally regarded" I don't understand. But it may be different in the US??
As an military history nerd with an european (Norwegian) perspective, I must say that I cannot remember ever having stumbled over a claim that WWII was fought in a special ethical way, and far from "the most ethical". So how this can be "generally regarded" I don't understand. But it may be different in the US??
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2003
- Messages
- 3,418
I'm born and raised in the U.S. and I have never heard this claim either. So I would say it is probably not "generally regarded" as such.
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
Don't forget the U.S. concentration camps for Japanese citizens.
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Oh, damn.
I can't. I could have sworn I'd read a credible source regarding that, but some Googling doesn't turn anything up. I think I took hearsay for fact.
Only tangentially related, but there was some research recently that pupported to show that those soldiers with a higher IQ were more likely to die in battle than those of lower IQ.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2008/12/iq-and-survival-in-war-scottish.html
There was a Bad Science thread pointing out some holes in the research - I'll see if I can find it.
http://www.badscience.net/forum/vie...t=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=soldiers+war+intelligence
Last edited:
Safe-Keeper
My avatar is not a Drumpf hat
Nothing to add except from this - is it enough of a justification that lives were saved? For perspective, I once read (ie. take this with a grain of salt) that during WWII, the Germans used POW's and concentration/death camp inmates as guinea pigs for medical experiments, often (or always?) without any form of painkiller. The purpose of one of these projects was to increase the survival rate of victims of hypothermia on the Eastern front. The Germans would force prisoners into freezing baths until they were nearly dead, for then to try out various ways of reviving them. The knowledge gained from these experiments would be put to use on the East front, where lots of lives were saved.
Does it follow from this that the US would be justified in the hypothetical use of, say, GTMO detainees as guinea pigs for medical experiments? Nope.
Does it follow from this that the US would be justified in the hypothetical use of, say, GTMO detainees as guinea pigs for medical experiments? Nope.
Throughout history, many horrific techniques and practices have been "considered the norm". Land mines were once a completely accepted part of warfare - now over a 100 countries have signed a pledge to ban them, and their usage is plummeting. Not only is the argument that torture is "part of the norm", fortunately, untrue, it's also an appeal to tradition fallacy.
Ultimately an oxymoron, as "liberty", to most of us, means freedom from oppression and horrific practices such as torture. Might as well ban every political party but the GOP and state it's in defence of democracy.
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
In my dad's memoir about his experiences, he wrote:
"We had no way of knowing that at about that time, General George C. Marshall, the Army Chief of Staff, found out about the ASTP that was sending a number of boys to college for some unspecified reason. He was then quoted as remarking "WE'RE ABOUT TO LOSE THE WAR AND WE'RE STILL SENDING BOYS TO COLLEGE?" After that, the ASTP sort of died. "
He had some first-hand knowledge, of course, but he also used History of the 398th as a reference.
See also Scholars in Foxholes: The Story of the Army Specialized Training Program in World War II , by Louis E. Keefer