Discuss historic crimes of the US

[sologdin]

Second worst after Nazi Germany. What the US did in the 20th century pails in comparison to what the Soviet Union did to its own people.

even if that's true, which is fairly debateable, what possible relevance could it have to this thread?

[ants]

.......

probably outside the scope of art. 8 bis, but certainly unlawful in the US by domestic law, is the interference with local elections, such as funding local candidates to be the US proxy, or distorting the election with US-funded propaganda in the election, such as:

....

1975: australia (!)

......

again, those listed are mostly successful attempts (i.e., defeat of the commie candidates, or whatever). hard to say if US support was the sine qua non, though--and i doubt much of it involved actual ballot box stuffing--in fact, the US told diem (before killing him) that it's good to fake elections, but stop returning 99% of the vote for yourself--60% is good enough (then they killed him--i guess he didn't listen well). there's a record of failed attempts to mess with french elections in the 1960s, too. there were apparently some bizarre attempts to mess with post-soviet elections in russia, too, was my understanding.

anyway, good times apparently were had by all.

Please, tell me more.

[Horza]

Please, tell me more.

Yeah, normally MI5 gets fingered for [ed: The Dismissal], as if there was some shortage of major players out to knife Whitlam in '75.

[ed: unless solo thinks the '75 election was rigged, which would be deep into extraordinary evidence territory.]

[Spring Bass]

even if that's true, which is fairly debateable, what possible relevance could it have to this thread?

Merely making a side point about your avatar and how it amused me.

Which is not to excuse the often-reprehensible behavior of the US in the foreign policy arena.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Eh, so if Truman isn't at fault, (apparently because anyone would have dropped the bombs for yuks) and no responsibility adheres to the guys responsible for Mukden, the 'China Incident' and the whole business of going to war with a vastly more powerful state on the strength of nothing more than wishful thinking and an unwillingness to stop carving out an empire in China, who is?

As horrible a decision as it was to have to make, there really was no decision to make. I don't think blame really applies given the circumstance. This is war we're talking about. Not using all the resources you have at your disposal to end it isn't really an option.

[Mazigh]

Second worst after Nazi Germany. What the US did in the 20th century pails in comparison to what the Soviet Union did to its own people.

The Third Reich is far from the worst of 20th century killing a few thousand jews in camps doesn't compare to what Soviet Union and the China did and pails in comparison to the depravities committed by French throughout North Africa or how the English destabilized the Middle East

[The Iceman of the North]

A few thousand?

[Jon AS]

The Third Reich is far from the worst of 20th century killing a few thousand jews in camps doesn't compare to what Soviet Union and the China did and pails in comparison to the depravities committed by French throughout North Africa or how the English destabilized the Middle East

What the fuck? Did you sleep through your history classes?

[Shryke]

Also, not just jews.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

This thread just got a lot more interesting!

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Arguing against Holocaust deniers is just stupid.

[DanteGabriel]

Arguing against Holocaust deniers is just stupid.

Not a denier, though -- apparently a minimizer. That is a new one on me.

[TrueMetis]

Not a denier, though -- apparently a minimizer. That is a new one on me.

Not to me, though I've never gotten the point of it. Would the Nazis have been better had they sucked at genocide? Actually there's a terrifying thought as they probably would.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Not to me, though I've never gotten the point of it. Would the Nazis have been better had they sucked at genocide? Actually there's a terrifying thought as they probably would.

Well, obviously. Presumably, results matter, in addition to intent. If a regime intends to commit genocide, but can't manage to kill a single person, are they more or less evil than a regime which kills ten million people because they want to forcibly alter agricultural policy?

[Castel]

Well, obviously. Presumably, results matter, in addition to intent. If a regime intends to commit genocide, but can't manage to kill a single person, are they more or less evil than a regime which kills ten million people because they want to forcibly alter agricultural policy?

I've discovered that when faced with philosophical questions like this the correct response is :are they ? Always works.

Or you could just play around with the word evil and split it between "most evil" regime and regime responsible for the most evil events?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Or you could just play around with the word evil and split it between "most evil" regime and regime responsible for the most evil events?

Well you could do that, but that doesn't seem to be a metric of the same thing. An "evil event" might be a small event. For example, it could be horrendous persecution on a specific, individual level. But then how would you characterize something like the Holocaust? Would it count as one enormous evil event, or millions (maybe even thousands!) of individual evil events?

*Also, for some with Rust Cohle as an avatar, you seem shockingly reluctant to take a firm position on any philosophical questions.

*Edited to add

[Castel]

Well you could do that, but that doesn't seem to be a metric of the same thing. An "evil event" might be a small event. For example, it could be horrendous persecution on a specific, individual level. But then how would you characterize something like the Holocaust? Would it count as one enormous evil event, or millions (maybe even thousands!) of individual evil events?

*Also, for some with Rust Cohle as an avatar, you seem shockingly reluctant to take a firm position on any philosophical questions.

*Edited to add

Well...no. But I feel the same way about the original question. It's asking about two different things (intentions and consequences) and then asking which we would prioritize when defining "evil" as some general thing, something that requires a value judgement-or a philosophy paper. Not much can be done from that point on. However, when you do treat them as different thing it's much easier to find an answer.

As for the Holocaust: I see no problem here? How we choose to define it doesn't seem to cause a problem as far as I can see. As a general, umbrella term for the evil that was forced on people it works well enough. As long as the same cause was responsible for the evil people endured then grouping them doesn't seem like a problem.

As for the issue of scale:same problem. Sure, a farmer being shot by the cops can be an evil event, but no one would say that it's anywhere near the same thing as bombing his village. So from there you can still answer the question:"what regime presided over the period of greatest misery and evil for it's people?"

As for my avatar: I'm the more mellow, ambivalent Cohle. Now with 33% less smug certainty.

[Phaing]

Arguing against Holocaust deniers is just stupid.

I've been having the same thoughts about most of the other posts in this thread as well.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur II]

The Third Reich is far from the worst of 20th century killing a few thousand jews in camps doesn't compare to what Soviet Union and the China did and pails in comparison to the depravities committed by French throughout North Africa or how the English destabilized the Middle East

Whether a few thousand were killed or a few million is not wholly relevant; what makes the Nazi Holocaust truly one of history's worst deeds is the depraved violence to which those killed were subjected, the cruel treatment, dehumanization, callous disregard of their humanity and belief that those people were sub humans, fit for extermination and experimentation. It is why a million cats and dogs killed humanely augurs less hue and cry than 50 dogs tortured to death. It is fact that millions perished in the Holocaust, but its the sheer sadism and evil extent of the deeds done which make it so very vile.

Getting back to the crimes of the United States, I do not believe anyone has mentioned the Tuskagee Experiment, while it did not kill in the numbers of some of the other incidents mentioned, its barbarism makes it amongst the worst of Unioted States deeds. Essentially, in the 1930s, scientists decided to study syphilis, a disease for which there was no cure. Then, in the 1940s, a cure was found, namely; penicillin. The researchers intentionally did not give the medication to their control group...who were black men...just to see the disease progression. And so the 1940s passed, and became the 1950s, and the men married, had kids born with congenital syphilis, and the study went on. 1950 became 1960, and the men passed the disease sexually, nothing was done. It was only in the 1970s that a whistleblower told the horrid tale, and exposed the needless suffering that these poor people underwent in the name of science.

[sologdin]

analysis of axis crimes in comparison with allegedly higher numbers by the eastern bloc or the US must take into consideration the relatively compressed duration of the axis as well as its comparatively limited territorial jurisdiction. kinda a no brainer, to be honest.