From: feg@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (forrest.e.gehrke)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:52:43 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Bvp7qx.6qy.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
>> That still doesn't make it right.  Not persecuting people for crimes
>> against humanity because they may be useful to you is wrong.  Period.
>> 
>
>
>I am in agreement. However my reading of history does not place the VfR group  
>very much in this. As was stated, they were not in SS, and in fact there were  
>attempts to take them over. Von Braun and the commander there had to play some  
>Byzantine politics to try to stay independant. Remember that the SS existed  
>because the German Army was not considered "reliable" enough to do Hitler's real  
>dirty work.
>
>> Furthermore, I think this attitude of yours that nobody's hands are
>> clean so people can't be criticized without an understanding of their
>> history is in large part responsible for the decline of modern
>> morality.  You have to step up and take responsibility for your actions,
>> no matter what--you can't wuss out with an unhappy childhood or a mean
>> mommy or "everybody's doing it".  If it's wrong, it's wrong.
>> 
>
>
>I don't think that is quite what Dennis said. He was defending the rocket team  
>in particular. My own readings of history place me firmly in agreement with him  
>on this. But I do agree with you in other cases: ie see my posting about the  
>unindicted war criminals from OUR side in WWII. The victors define morality to  
>be very simply 
>
>
>	what we did   == good or at least necessary
>	what they did == evil and unjustifiable
>
>The above is what society ACTUALLY did, and that is true moral relativism. I  
>don't think that anyone is implying that Nazism was anything but the most evil  
>and perverted government, over all, of any in recent history. But one must still  
>deal with individuals as individuals, apart from their cause, and judge them  
>only on their acts and against a well defined legal standard. Had we done that,  
>I am confident the same number of Nazi's would have swung on the ends of ropes  
>after Nuremberg. The difference is they would have been joined by a couple Brits  
>and Americans.
>
>After all, can anyone say the perpetrators of Dresden were other than pure evil?  
>A century hence their names will be damned in the history books and they will be  
>equated with the worst of their Nazi peers. Please note that I do not place much  
>blame on the pilots who flew that terrible mission. The blame is reserved for  
>the officers and planners who knew what they were doing and why they were doing  
>it.
>
>Von Braun, in my mind, was one of the good guys who happened to be on the wrong  
>side at the time.
>

Why all this palaver over what went on in WW II?  It can't be changed
and atrocities occur in all wars. The only thing that is different
about any of them is that the longer they go on, the worse the
atrocities become.   As Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman has proclaimed, 
"War is hell".  He did all he could to make it so for his opponents.   

(What he had to say about being president of the United States is 
even more interesting considering the number who try for it
today).

Can we get on with what this group is set up to discuss and move
the rest of this to one of the talk groups?

Forrest Gehrke feg@dodger.att.com