OHH, my poor little thread
All I wanted was some historical flare to the crew since so much effort is going into the historical flare of the sub. And now this. But since you started it...
War is criminal, war is hell, war is barbaric, war is everything awful you can think of. In all wars the winners are the victors and the losers are the war criminals. Crimes are committed on both sides, and the side that commits fewer crimes is usually the side that loses. Sure the Nazis were absolutely awful in every respect. But do realise that the Allies killed just as many civilians in the fire bombings of German and Japanese cities, culminating with the wholesale eradication of Hiroshima. So technically you can say that the Allies commited more crimes than the Axis and consequently they won.
Now I am an American and I have absolutely NO problem whatsoever with the actions of my government during WWII. Why? Because you have to fight fire with fire or burn to ashes trying. In fact, ending a conflict as brutally and completely as possible, as quickly as possible, actually SAVES lives in the long run. We all know what would have been if the Allies had invaded the Japanese home islands. The Hiroshima death tole would pale in comparison.
Well, fast forward twenty years after WWII and you have the swingin' sixties with the wonderful in your face, live from the battlefield, American media. Now the "crimes" of war are exposed for all to see. The politicians get scared that the majority of the historically uneducated electorate will not vote for them and they begin to pull back so as to appear "kinder and gentiler" of the tube every night. The war then drags on into a protracted, bloodier conflict since more people are killed over the years of "police action" than would ever have died in a short (yet brutal) total victory.
Fast forward thirty years after Vietnam and you have good ol' Iraq. Once again, America finds herself losing more people and staying longer in a conflict than she should since the mission is not to vanquish the enemy, rather to win "hearts and minds". Yes that vanquishing requires civilian casualties. Do you think civilian casualties were considered when Gen. LeMay planned the firebombing of Tokyo?
War is hell folks. When Mush Morton shot at those lifeboats he shortened the war by weeks, maybe months. If he had let them return to their homes the war would have claimed even more lives just by the fact that it was still active that little bit longer.
In conclusion, am I advocating war crimes? I an a way, yes. However, am I also advocating war? NO! My advocation of war crimes is only for the greater good of ending the conflict as soon as possible. Ironically humanity is served with far fewer deaths.
If politicians today do not have the stomach for war crimes, than they have no business going to war in the first place. Someone should have told MR. BUSH that...
Sorry for the rant but I have had the need to get that off my chest for some time now. Americas politicians and media are getting more people killed worrying about votes and ratings respectively than if they bit the bullet and supported a quick and total victory.
It makes no sense to prolong a conflict to save lives...
Mush Morton, I salute you!