Delete comment from: Boston 1775
I’m not convinced that "moral compromises and outright betrayals are inseparable from every combat" is an example of a historian imposing his own judgments. It looks more like a historian stating a possibly discomfiting conclusion based on the historical record. I can’t think of an advanced culture that doesn’t have a discussion of moral compromises and betrayals in war as part of its literature, and I can’t think of a well documented war that doesn’t have examples of moral compromises.
As for World War 2 and the Vietnam War, I think they both were presented as moral crusades, starting well before the actual legislative approval of combat. One conflict has retained that image in popular culture, in part because the enemy turned out to be even worse than Americans thought. The other lost its pro-democracy sheen early on. We might remember one more positively than the other because of that difference, or because our team won one, or because of some combination of those reasons and others.
Jun 9, 2011, 9:42:58 PM