Quote:
Originally posted by _Q_
Yeah, one thing that made me uneasy was the claim that the Allies should have bombed the camps - that could have killed the Jewish prisoners also.
|
Could have killed Jewish prisoners? It would have killed Jewish prisoners, but it still would have been the humane thing to do. Nazi concentration camps were assembly lines of death fed by a modern rail distribution system. Humane action on genocide always becomes an accounting problem. What will result in fewer deaths? Inaction or violent intervention? The latter would have resulted in fewer deaths. This was brought to the attention by FDR, and he chose inaction.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by _Q_ Another uncomfortable issue is that there's a lot of investment in countries where there are serious human rights violations. I'm by no means a Bush supporter, but this doesn't seem appreciably worse than some of the other 20th century corporate activity.
|
Generally, direct corporate investment in countries with "serious human rights violations" is the only way to move these countries forward. Without investment, no middle class will emerge. Without a middle class, no effective force will emerge to challange these regimes.
Nazi Germany was different because they did have an educated middle class. Once it became apparent what was going on, there was no excuse. The standard has to be investment that was initiated
after the oppression began.