I wonder what the ICC's advocates have to say about this.

General Curtis LeMay noted that he would have been tried as a war criminal had WWII gone the other way. His point was that hundreds of US officers would have been also and, on the rationale of our show trials, been more than equally guilty.

Great couple of posts, Paul.

Gen. LeMay would probably be tried for war crimes by the United States itself had he run the modern Air Force in its actions against modern foes with the ruthlessness and brutality that led to the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo. This guy was a nutcase. Haven't you seen Dr. Strangelove?

You're right about Himmler, but Nuremburg did acquit some people. Justice Jackson tried to be as thorough as he could, given the circumstances. Personally, I think we did it that way more for our own conscience. It's nicer to look back and say that we gave them a fair trial than summary hangings, even if the latter would've been quicker and let to the same result.

I suspect you're right--and the documentary trail left by the Nuremberg trials is impressive. But for the Tokyo trials, the ethics are far more questionable (exhibit A: Hirohito died of natural causes).

If LeMay was guilty, then what of his staff? What of his superiors? What of the pilots and the airmen and the groundcrew? "War crimes" are slippery things.

Folks like Balta will tell you that the Geneva Conventions are remarkably clear language given to no shades of meaning. Would anyone care to do a retrospective on American violations of those Conventions in WWII? General LeMay was a great Patriot and warrior-one really ought not get their facts from left-wing movies either now or then. However, Slim Pickens was cool.

One moral distinction that shouldn't be overlooked is that Himmler fought for the Third Reich, and LeMay for the American Republic. If the latter is not the Platonic ideal of 'goodness,' the former is surely the most obvious manifestation of evil in the last hundred years, and possibly the entirety of the past.

Paul,

I'm not sure what moral distinction you're trying to draw. I don't know enough about LeMay personally, but a quick Wikipedia search revealed enough to ask a question:

Do you mean to say that what with the US being the good guys and the Nazi's being the bad guys, LeMay's acts could never really be as bad as Himmler's because LeMay's acts (I'm thinking particularly of the firebombings and willingness to use the Bomb) were done with some level of justification that Himmler could never have?

Or do you mean to say that since the Nazi's were evil, Himmler's acts were more or less consistant to what we would expect, but since LeMay was part of the good guys, any shortcomings on his part need to be looked at with a more critical lens?

Well, being the good guy means you do get judged by a different standard. But on the other hand, a hypothetical Soviet Union atomic bombing of Hiroshima would be morally different from the American use of the Bomb, inasmuch as the Soviet war aims were to spread Soviet power, and the American aims were to combat the spread of fascism/totalitarianism (except Soviet totalitarianism, inadvertently). (There were other war aims on both sides, but I'm painting with broad strokes here.)

In other words, the same actions committed by agents with different intentions need not entail the same moral judgment. Arendt: "If a wall stands upright, we say it is a good wall. If that wall keeps inmates in a concentration camp, it is a bad one." (Or words to better effect.)

To ward off potential pedanticism: for "Soviet power" read "Stalin's power" above--the effect is different, and worse.

The Nazis were categorically evil because their stated purpose was the annihilation of entire human populations. The Americans it seems seek to find some workable arrangement for human populations to coexist via democratic and free-market instruments. In thinking about individuals, however, LeMay's means (and some of his views of the Japanese) were quite out of sync with American aims for the international order.

Surely the Black Book Of Communism is in a near by library and reading it will disabuse you of your recently expressed notion concerning the Nazi sorts. Meanwhile, moral acts are done by individuals. The Geneva accords do not give away "get out of jail free cards" depending upon whose side you are on. I would suggest that the reporting on American War Crimes WWII is as empty as the reporting on what the Nazi Party actually did (as against our propaganda/movies, television does portray them). In the news recently, for instance, the Nazi SS general in charge of Rome advised the Pope of a kidnap plot instigated by Hitler. Why would an SS General do that?

In thinking about individuals, however, LeMay's means (and some of his views of the Japanese) were quite out of sync with American aims for the international order.

But again, we can't judge LeMay outside of the system in which he operated--he was not a rogue commander, and his subordinates were not automatons. LeMay has to be viewed as part of a war-system (if only the best word for it weren't the German for "war machine") and so culpability runs up and down the chain of command--the bombs that fell on Tokyo and heated the Sumida River past the boiling point did not cause themselves to fall. By Nuremberg logic, a good many more people than LeMay deserved a harsher fate. (Not taking into account the American war aims here.)

Under 'just war' theory, I suppose LeMay could contend military necessity, but that is a doubtful thread. And again we have to introduce the concept of a moral judgment of the system and its aims to differentiate between the Himmlers and the LeMays....

You post anonymously wisely, troll.

He could do so only under Walzer's doctrine of the supreme emergency - but against the Japanese, it seems, this would be a faulty argument, Nanking aside.

But I agree that you can't place all the blame on LeMay. I'm sure glad we won, though.

Our anonymous friend (I grow so tired of this little game; can't each anonymous commenter simply adopt a pseudonym?) makes several points, only a few of which I follow.

1) Saying the Nazis were the ultimate manifestation of human evil does not imply that Communists were in any way a force for human good; this is a ridiculous and trivial red herring. (Heh, "red.")

2) Okay, so moral acts are done by individuals. But, um, sometimes individuals may "just be following orders," and sometimes individuals may be acting in ways that are not immediately and obviously morally hideous--making up train schedules, for instance, is not an awful thing; making up train schedules to transport people to Auschwitz is.

3) The Geneva Accords do not particularly concern me, especially because they are enforced by no court--which is the whole point of the post this comment thread is based on. That's the question: How do we strike a balance between the pragmatic principle of sovereignty and the moral principle of justice?

4) Re: American war crimes--Well, I know of a few, and I don't think any new ones are going to come to light...and they don't get much grimmer on an individual level than desecrating corpses to steal gold teeth, for instance.

5) Whatever.

"I'm sure glad we won, though."

Yes, indeed. The thought of postwar Japan occupied by the Red Army sickens me.