The flaw with this argument is that the National Socialist party antagonized most of Europe by taking territories it claimed was its own that the rest of Europe's sovereign governments had acknowledged were not Germany's. Most of Europe took an appeasement stance, which gave power to Adolf Hitler and led to what is considered one of the greatest tragedies of modern history.
The difference between this scenario and the Star Wars example is that in Star Wars, there was a single sovereign government. The movie begins with the Rebel Alliance antagonizing the Empire and the Empire striking back with vengeance.
World War II is a difficult analogy because that was a question of many established, sovereign governments going to war as opposed to one government using questionable means to quell an uprising within its sovereign territory.
The bit about the various nations not being analogous to 1939-1945 Europe, I will admit is correct. The beauty of my comparison is that if we only consider a single segment of the Second World War, it would be easy to jump to any far-fetched conclusion about Hitler's Germany. You insist we only consider the last three episodes. That is the point I was trying to make, comparing the common disregard for human life (or in the case of the Empire, sentient life) and fundamental freedoms. Unlike you, I see the Declaration of Independence as voicing truths that are not bound to this or that state or nation, but are universal.
A better analogy would be the Free Aceh movement in Indonesia. Of course, that ended up working out mutually beneficially...maybe if the Rebel Alliance put down their arms and attempted diplomacy, they could have made real progress.
-wtk
Or maybe they would have been shot for the
'greater good'. After all, if blowing a world to #$&*@! and killing untold billions to make a point is perfectly 'OK', then killing a few rebels can't be too much of a pang to the conscience. Unless perhaps diplomacy is a code word for torture.
Also, bonus points to me for not calling into question your age, your parent's politics, your overall upbringing, or your inability to think millimeters outside the box (or the boundaries of your own morality).
Oh, wait...
-wtk
Very good. How nobly condescending of you. It appears you have noticed I am 15 and are quite anxious to pat yourself on the back for being nice to me and simply defeating me with your own blazing wit and not instead going after a red herring. Oh wait, you just did... As for my parent's political views, they are as relevant as the views of your parents, or any other set of people you care to mention. My upbringing is also quite irrelevant. I could have grown up in a cardboard box and been raised as a Satanist. It is another red herring, an in case you never took logic,
here is that definition, courtesy of the goods folks at Wikipedia. My refusal to back down from my position, or "inability to think millimeters outside the box (or the boundaries of your own morality)" is a complicated way to say that once I take a position I don't back down from it until it is rendered indefensible by argument. People do not come with their own custom morality that is tailored to their world-view, and attacking mine will not cause me to abandon it. I salute you for remaining within your morality, and for staying inside your own box. You are, at the least, consistent. I will endeavor to remain the same.
Also, bonus points to me for not calling into question your age, your parent's politics, your overall upbringing, or your inability to think millimeters outside the box (or the boundaries of your own morality).
Oh, wait...
-wtk
Red herrings are such a subtle way to derail an argument aren't they?
Topic: World War II: The Moral Question (Read 1983 times)
