Were we right to sack Prospero?

[SamaNagol]

Perhaps this wasn't the first Legion Russ had been sent to destroy....

[Grey Mage]

Perhaps this wasn't the first Legion Russ had been sent to destroy....

SSSSSSSSHHHHHHH!

[Grand Master Tyrak]

Lenient. Well, does the M41 Imperium really fit into the Emperor's vision for Humanity? Does it really? Do you think you would find someone like Horus (when he was good) murdering entire populations because of a single cult? Murdering those loyal to the Emperor who simply want small reform? No.

 

DO YOU THINK THE EMPEROR WOULD HAVE DONE WHAT THE ADMINISTRATUM DID TO THE PEOPLE OF ARMAGEDDON AFTER ANGRON'S INVASION?

 

Hm. Throughout the fluff, I see the Emperor being willing to do whatever is necessary to ensure the survival of humanity. Arguably since he is the Emperor, he has more scope to listen to these ideas, but I think if they were necessary he would do it. I just don't think they would be necessary if the Emperor was up and about. The Emperor may be playing nice, but he's still got the survival and dominance of humanity foremost in his mind. If being nice and the survival of humanity conflict, it's not going to be playing nice that wins the day.

 

Same deal with Armageddon. If the Emperor had been faced with the Administratum's choice, I don't think he would have acted any differently. The problem is he wouldn't be faced with that choice - he can probably sense the corruption far better than the Inquisition can, so he can pick out those who are and aren't tainted. He could probably expunge any taint far more easily than the current purification rituals used by the Ordo Malleus.

But if it came down to it, I think the Emperor would have sacrificed the few to save the many. He may be nice, but he's also ruthlessly pragmatic.

 

I think that's what Magnus fell foul of - ruthless pragmatism. He's a threat to the Emperor, so he needs dealing with. Indeed, Magnus' sorcery is arguably a small reform - overturning the Council of Nikea. Look how the Emperor reacts.

 

Perhaps this wasn't the first Legion Russ had been sent to destroy....

SSSSSSSSHHHHHHH!

 

If it was the Pretty Marines, I swear to the Emperor that I will keep the Inquisition off your backs. :P

[Karack Blackstone]

The Dark Heresy setting of books brings up cults that would kill billions to see one warrior emerge as a hero in the peoples' eyes, so if this is still an endorsed line, there's that to consider.

 

Mostly what I see is the Emperor would likely have been able to weed out those that were weak enough to turn to chaos, and help them see the light. The problem becomes we don't know how the Emperor would truly have responded if he were there on Armageddon, seeing as the orks would love to fight him there's also that to consider.

 

Mostly what I want to say is that the Emperor is a pragmatist, that I agree with, but I do not see him as killing off so many when he can bolster their minds with his own psyker talents. Barring that, (also that he couldn't) I would figure that we would not have seen so many expunged by the Inquisition after the first war of Armageddon. Overreacting is an Inquisition specialty, and the real question becomes what have we lost, versus the simple fact that all those lives need not have died.

 

Telling others that demons exist is an offense you die for? Seems rather harsh, never mind that so much of the Imperium is reliant on ignorance with the current outlook, it's not hard to see that so much of what we know and can say/do is limited by the rules to keep mankind subjugated by the "High Lords"... No major developments in technology in 10,000 years? That's going to see us keep ahead of our foes. At least we Space Wolves made the Predator Annihilator.

 

No wonder we Sons of Russ question authority. It's the only sane thing to do after having had our own forces witness the butchery of the citizens of Armageddon.

[Athalus]

I agree, after Armageddon and the complete lack of the current leadership to really produce anything fruitful, I would be in the same boat. As for sacking Prospero, we are space Vikings... arrrooooo.... so why the hell not? =P. (I jest)

[Grand Master Tyrak]

Overreacting is an Inquisition specialty, and the real question becomes what have we lost, versus the simple fact that all those lives need not have died.

 

Is it? Leave a single daemonic incursion unchecked and you could quite easily lose a Sector. Knowledge and experience is on the Inquisition's side here. They might be being blase about the lives of the citizens of Armageddon, but the alternative is being blase about the lives of the Armageddon System, if not the entire Sector.

Perhaps it is easier for the Wolves to think the way that they do, with the Wulfen to save them from falling to Chaos. :)

 

Kill one to save 100,000? Put nine zeroes on the end of both of those figures and you'll end up with the choices that the Inquisition regularly faces. Is it sacrificing the few to save the many? Yes. Is it also mass murder? Yes, because the 'few' in this case are not few at all - there are billions of them. But the numbers of the 'many' are greater still.

Even if it doesn't convince you it still shows just how insignificant a single human life is in the Imperium.

 

Trying to keep this vaguely on-topic, I pose a question: would Magnus and the Thousand Sons qualify as the "few" if attacking Prospero might have prevented the Heresy (regardless of how it actually turned out)? Does the risk of wider conflict justify the Emperor's orders, or even Horus' modified orders? No hindsight please, especially about Horus' loyalties! :)

[Raulmichile]

What I don't understand as a father is if Big Daddy only wanted to bring back Magnus to Terra to really reprimand him and sit him in the Golden Throne, then decided to send Russ to do the task.... As if the Emperor doesn't know Russ was for a long time just looking for an excuse to kick Magnus' butt big. He could easily ordered Ferrus Manus or Corax to go and fetch Magnus back. At least they, for all their stuborness and despise of sorcery, would be al little bit more fair or objective, maybe asking first, firing second. This was an ubber mistake from the Empreror unless:

 

a ) What the Emperor planned is to totally destroy the Thousand Sons Legion as a punishment or as some sort of cleansement because he sensed irreparable levels of taint and chain Magnus in the Golden Throne, maybe giving him a second chance later if he feels it could be done. In that case, what Horus did to tergiverse the order is not so relevant; either case, Leman Russ would shot first and ask (if any) second anyway.

 

b ) He wanted the task done, no bargain, no concesions. So then, the most suitable Primarch to do the job is the one who has more issues with Magnus. In fact Russ relished the opportunity. It seems he didn't show any sort of doubt or remorse when being ordered to punch (ahem, bring back) Magnus.

 

In either case, I think the Emperor either overreacted or simply showed his ruthless side. I think he overreacted because if you see the benefit of doubt he granted Horus, to the point of letting him to do what he did to his very person (not to mention his resistance to accept that Horus rebelled), then what Magnus was doing didn't deserve such a reaction. If he didn't overreact he then was a ruthles b_____d that is willing to sacrifice one of his own sons just to quell the taint of Chaos.

 

Hey, And I'm not saying that Magnus didn't do a big mess. Throwing a message tied in a brick through the window at the second floor and breaking his father's irreplaceable Ming dinasty Jar just because he wants to prove his father he is indeed a good pitcher and to avoid going up the ladder is a big mess. But if you put in perspective that your son is warning you that his sibling is dirving a bulldozer to raze your house with you in it, you don't trust him, and after seeing your house destroyed you are still dubious that your son Horus hates you and wanted to kill you, and you wan't to ask him what is going on when you sent another son to kick the bejesus crap out of Magnus because he wanted to prove you he is not so bad? Then as a father I'm lost...

 

In both cases it is clear that it is clear that the Emperor loved Horus a lot more than Magnus :)

[Grand Master Tyrak]

He wanted the task done, no bargain, no concesions. So then, the most suitable Primarch to do the job is the one who has more issues with Magnus. In fact Russ relished the opportunity. It seems he didn't show any sort of doubt or remorse when being ordered to punch (ahem, bring back) Magnus.

 

This makes sense, actually. Why send a Primarch who's going to have qualms about any possible conflict with Magnus? You might end up sparking a bigger conflict than you intended if that Primarch sides with Magnus.

[Karack Blackstone]

The only real issues I have with the big I is mass-murder, which you admit it is, and reactionary attitude on all fronts. The problem I see with addressing this reactionary outlook is that it would be very difficult to get ahead of chaos, bar anything short of having spies, which I think would have about a zero level of success.

 

As you point out, we Wolves have the Wulfen to prevent us from falling to chaos. Other than that, humanity has, apparently, no recourse. If that could be addressed I would certainly like to hear options, excluding mass murder, preferably.

 

I think the point listed above about sending Russ is about spot on, seeing as there is little reason to risk a son that could be turned to Magnus' side. If one lost is too much, losing another surely could put the Emperor in a nasty place.

 

I use hindsight to keep things in perspective, although it can be hard to keep in its place at times. I make no apology for my attitude, my comments I am trying to keep civil as I still both don't envy and don't like the Inquisition's job in the 40K setting. I've played Dark Heresy, it's not pretty.

 

Edit: To note, while I have not read the HH books, it is all over the fluff that Horus was the most beloved of the Emperor's sons. So him hearing that he wanted to kill dear old dad is rather likely hard for him to have taken.

[lunchb0x]

Orders is Orders.

[Raulmichile]

Orders is Orders.

 

 

In fact this is the eternal conflict. Orders are orders up to what extent. At what price.

 

 

 

P.D. Curiously, in this very case, it surely was for Russ; notoriously adept to do things the other way around.

[Donkey Kong]

Orders are orders up to what extent. At what price.

 

In the military, I would imagine having never been there, orders are orders are orders, now, forever and indefinitely.

 

The events during the Holocaust, the Nanking Massacre, etc. are all the results of orders. Is it a disgusting fact? Yes. Were soldiers wrong to follow the orders of their superiors? No. World War 2 Japanese soldiers were taught that death > surrender, beat is alright if evidence is destroyed, human experimentation is fine, Kamikaze pilots were taught that it was an honor to die for the Emperor and tried their hardest to crash into Allied ships.

 

If you want the truth, the Nuremberg Trials were, for all intensive purposes, illegal. There was no international government, such as the UN today, in place to rule fairly. The Japanese officers escaped, for the most part, unscathed because they said their actions were orders from the Emperor who the Allies agreed not to prosecute. As cold and heartless as it is, soldiers are tools to be used by the military and the government for the protection of the nation. A soldier, like any human, may have the freedom to think for themselves, to differentiate between right and wrong, but when push comes to shove, there's them, there's you, and you is always better than them.

 

To use a quote: "The difference between gods and demons largely depends on where one is standing at the time." Hitler was nothing short of a demigod in Nazi Germany, to all those but the oppressed, citizens too frightened to speak up and the minds behind Operation Valkyrie.

 

When countries are at war, it really has to be realized that there are no civilians. If a country has declared total war, every man, woman and child is for the war effort and in it for the long haul. Men and women fight, work in factories to produce materials for the war effort, children learn about the heroism of soldiers and families are spoon fed propaganda to hate the enemy and sacrifice for the armed services. Fascist states with groups like the Hitler Youth really just push the point.

 

Vietnamese women and children armed with bombs, African child soldiers, so on and so forth, when in war, don't expect mercy from the other side. It kind of makes you wonder about morals and how it works in the end, if you can target a factory, next to a hospital and an elementary school (both filled with wounded soldiers and possible child soldiers or future soldiers if the war continues) and hit just the factory without doing much to either adjacent building, you accomplished hindering the war effort, but you didn't hinder the country much more than pushing quotas in other factories.

 

I know it's propaganda, but it's lines like "We have: tanks, ships, guns, we need soldiers!" that just make it obvious you need to hurt more than supplies to make an impact. Stalingrad (or rather Enemy at the Gates) has that wonderful (paraphrased) line: "One man has the rifle, and shoots! When the man with the rifle dies, the man following picks up the rifle and shoots!" The Soviet Union could have drowned the Nazis in their blood, more than a million Soviets died defending Stalingrad from an initial assault from about thirty thousand Nazis with progressive support.

 

History is dirty business indeed.

 

Russ was not wrong to question the Emperor, or his Proxy, Horus. The Emperor loved his sons, but actions do not go unpunished. To put it simply, Magnus unleashed hell inside the Imperial Palace. Unknowingly? Yes. With legitimate reason? Yes. Are the consequences the same, and does "I'm sorry" honestly fix anything? Yes. Russ was a good son for listening to his father. Out of the Primarchs, it is clear that Russ isn't necessarily the brightest, but he's loyal. I don't know what to say about the fluff with the Space Wolves being designed as "Legion Killers", but I'd like to see what Abnett does with it.

 

To put more pressure on the idea of the Emperor loved Horus more than Magnus, I think it's stated somewhere that the Emperor didn't even read much of the message beyond "Love, Magnus" at the bottom before diving off the deep end, releasing the wolves, and fighting the demons now inside the Imperial Palace. It's like the old joke of: "your friend sees a mosquito on your back and hits you, but the mosquito flew away and you just smacked your friend," on a much larger scale. You're pissed because he hit you, and while his intentions may have been just, you don't care and would like nothing more than giving them a smack in return.

 

I don't really have any information on whether or not the Thousand Sons were prepared for an invasion, but if The Fang is anything to go by, not only is a Space Marine homeworld a fortress by default, it's a fortress on a continental scale, built to withstand everything from ground assaults to orbital bombardments. The Fang was defended by the Space Wolves against the Thousand Sons after they turned traitor when they were understrength and led by Bjorn the Fell Handed, and the Space Wolves won.

 

If the cover is any indication, Russ is accompanied, not only by his legion, but by both a contingent of the Custodes and the Silent Sisterhood. If neither of them say a word to Russ about Horus's "revised" instructions from the Emperor, there isn't much to say in favor of the Thousand Sons. From what can be seen, the Emperor wants Magnus back, intact, to sit on the Golden Throne and defend against the demons now invading, what can be assumed is, the work in progress Imperial Webway.

 

Punishing? Undoubtably, the task killed one of the most famous, and most powerful, psykers in the Imperium, Malcador. Does Magnus necessarily deserve the task? The situation requires foresight to answer, but for the most part, Magnus had no idea what he was doing. It's kind of like how minors aren't tried as adults because they don't fully understand the situation or what they did.

 

Was it wrong of the Emperor to send Russ instead of, say Dorn or the Khan? It depends. Dorn was working on the Palace, to remove him would be the Emperor shooting himself in the foot. The Khan may have been en route to the Imperial Palace. Ferrus was busy fighting whatever alien race it was in Fulgrim. Horus, Fulgrim, Angron and Mortarion were busy at Isstvan. In fact, I don't even know the timeline very well, all of the Emperor's sons could have been en transit, whether to the Imperial Palace or on one of the expeditions. Russ may have been the only available Primarch. Or, it could just be said that the Space Wolves were made for the purpose of taking down another Legion and now was there time to take one of their brothers into custody.

 

On the world, if the Space Wolves had their goal changed from "capture" to "destroy" and Russ was following orders, then yes, it would make sense for him to simply begin the assault. If he asked Magnus to surrender and got no response or was denied, he has every reason to assault. If Magnus was giving himself up, the Space Wolves would be at fault. Under any other circumstances, Russ was just "following orders".

 

It can be argued that the Primarchs were all brothers, but if you really look at it, none of them grew up together. They were the Emperor's sons, the Astartes were all brothers (however I forget who says the line, but it goes something like "That is as much a lie as it is truth"). You had some brotherly love between Primarchs (Ferrus and Fulgrim, for example), while you also had fierce rivalries, Dorn and Perturabo, Gulliman and Alpharius, Russ and Magnus.

 

The Primarchs were more fathers to their legions and the Emperor's sons and generals than they were brothers themselves. It's honestly no worse than Eisenhower penalizing Patton for his actions in Italy. If one of your fellow "generals" who happens to be created by the same individual as you is declared a traitor, you walk a fine line between brother and brother in arms.

 

Tarvitz and Garro had a similar problem, the difference being that they were as close as the Astartes of a single legion were and didn't have quite the same grudge or humanity of the Primarchs.

 

I'd like Magnus to be the "wronged son" rather than "corrupt from the beginning", but Russ was just as "wronged" as Magnus, and I like the idea that the reason the wolves are so anti-authority today is because authority led them to attack another legion.

 

Prospero was Horus' fault. The Wolves were justified in attacking the world.

 

On The First War for Armageddon:

The Imperium has its own "greater good" and the widespread knowledge of demons is far more dangerous to the greater good than sending the population of one planet to work camps. Is it cruel? Sure. Is it justified? Even more so. Would the Emperor have done so? I believe he would have, given the fact that he opposed any idea of demonic powers, although he may have dismissed it as "the xenos that live in the warp".

 

And before anyone else asks, I realize I type too much ;) .

[Hfran Morkai]

And before anyone else asks, I realize I type too much :) .

 

Not at all!

 

Your post was interesting and brought some nice moral material to our fictional galaxy.

 

And the thing is, we can ponder on these and other actions carried out because I feel Prospero Burns will still leave questions to be answered by those left to think.

[Grand Master Tyrak]

If you want the truth, the Nuremberg Trials were, for all intensive purposes, illegal. There was no international government, such as the UN today, in place to rule fairly.

 

Actually, KingHongKong, the United Nations was founded on the 1st December 1942 by the Allied leaders (particularly Roosevelt). The Nuremberg Trials were carried out under it's auspices. It doesn't help that its cause was synonymous with the Allied cause, but then again it (and the Allies) were still continuing League of Nations policy. It's only after the war that we see the now-familiar infrastructure of the United Nations get put in place and the UN start to make its own (relatively speaking) decisions.

 

Russ was not wrong to question the Emperor, or his Proxy, Horus. The Emperor loved his sons, but actions do not go unpunished. To put it simply, Magnus unleashed hell inside the Imperial Palace. Unknowingly? Yes. With legitimate reason? Yes. Are the consequences the same, and does "I'm sorry" honestly fix anything?

 

QFT. It doesn't help determine whether Russ' actions were intrinsically wrong or right (even in a 30k context), but it still has to be remembered that the sacking of Prospero is no worse than what happened at the Imperial Palace. Unintentional daemonic invasion v deliberate invasion under Imperial orders.

[Donkey Kong]

Your post was interesting and brought some nice moral material to our fictional galaxy.

 

I'm flattered, thank you ^_^ .

 

Actually, KingHongKong, the United Nations was founded on the 1st December 1942 by the Allied leaders (particularly Roosevelt). The Nuremberg Trials were carried out under it's auspices. It doesn't help that its cause was synonymous with the Allied cause, but then again it (and the Allies) were still continuing League of Nations policy. It's only after the war that we see the now-familiar infrastructure of the United Nations get put in place and the UN start to make its own (relatively speaking) decisions.

 

I apologize, my mistake. We learned about the Second World War recently in history and the lack of an international body was one of the statements my teacher made in his lecture about the events following the war's end. Guess you can't believe everything you learn in class, eh?

 

but it still has to be remembered that the sacking of Prospero is no worse than what happened at the Imperial Palace. Unintentional daemonic invasion v deliberate invasion under Imperial orders.

 

I think it's fair to call the "Imperial orders" deception. After all, Horus was set on tricking two loyal legions into fighting one another. Also, this opinion does kind of get skewered when you realize that the unintended outcome was a result of a banned practice, sorcery. Magnus already had his hand slapped. Many children feel that they know better than their parents at times, but when daddy is the ruler of the human species it's a little senseless to question his will.

 

I know Games Workshop likes to make the whole universe more kid friendly, but I honestly love how upside down morals can get in the 41st (and 31st) millennium. From Armageddon to Vraks, the number of lives lost is honestly staggering. It's frightening to imagine groups so tightly bonded to fight one another, just like every one of the Traitor's attacks. Isstvan III, Isstvan V, and the Siege of Terra are all examples of warrior brotherhoods literally turning in on one another and destroying a near galaxy spanning empire, two centuries in the making, into a ruin.

 

It's almost scary to think that in the terms of our fictional universe, the six billion people that make up the Earth's population aren't even a drop in the bucket.

 

I favor Russ over Magnus, but I still think the tale is more of a tragedy, not necessarily for one side or the other, but for the Imperium as a whole. Again, I want Magnus to be a tragic character, someone who did do something with the best of intentions, but ultimately condemned himself and just helped to pave the road to damnation.

[SamaNagol]

Up until very recently 'war crimes' were only committed by the losing side. That's something to remember too.

[Freman Bloodglaive]

That's because, in war, losing is the only crime.

[CainTheHunter]

A bit of Offtopic, but I think somebory needs a short lecture on international public law :).

As to the Nuremberg trial, the main issue is not whether UN were founded prior or afterwards. The main issue, to keep it simple, is that during the WW2 there was no official definition of genocide crime - actually the UN Genocide Convention was adopted following extensive preparatory works in 1948, and entered into force in 1951. As to the war crimes, the four Geneve Conventions and three protocols were negotiated only in 1948. Until then, only customary principles existed as to the acceptable war practices, treatment of civilians and prisoners of war. The problem with them was that there were several old ordnances (from 19th century and even from the American Civil War) and the old Hague conventions of 1907 on customs of war - some of the WW2 participants were parties to these documents, others were not. That, as well as the "following orders defense" were raised by the defendants, who tried to argue that they did not commit war crimes, or that the actions they committed were not labelled as "international crimes" during the time of their commitment.

For what the Nuremberg has been criticised is that it is mainly described as "victor's justice", given that the Allied Powers are known to commit several similar atrocities, but no one has ever been tried for this. Bombing of the city of Dresden in Germany by RAF and USAAF with incindeary bombs with estimated 25,000 civilian fatalities is one of the well-known examples. Another example is mass civilian deportations committed by Stalin regime in the USSR and occupied territories.

[FuriousFerret]

who is this "we" of which you speak? Were "we" right to sack Prospero? IDK about you, but last I checked I was still maintaining a distinction between myself and my little plastic army men from space. So I did not participate in the sacking of an imaginary planet in an imaginary future.

[Durfast Spiritwolf]

Orders are orders up to what extent. At what price.

 

In the military, I would imagine having never been there, orders are orders are orders, now, forever and indefinitely.

 

The events during the Holocaust, the Nanking Massacre, etc. are all the results of orders. Is it a disgusting fact? Yes. Were soldiers wrong to follow the orders of their superiors? No. World War 2 Japanese soldiers were taught that death > surrender, beat is alright if evidence is destroyed, human experimentation is fine, Kamikaze pilots were taught that it was an honor to die for the Emperor and tried their hardest to crash into Allied ships.

 

As a retired infanteer I have to say no, absolutely not.

 

The military are obliged to follow the laws of the nation they have sworn to protect.

[SamaNagol]

Nearly finished reading Thousand Sons. Its very good and describes the Council of Nikaea and exactly what it was that the 1KSons practised.

[CainTheHunter]

Nearly finished reading Thousand Sons. Its very good and describes the Council of Nikaea and exactly what it was that the 1KSons practised.

 

It has hit the stores already? Maelstrom Games shows it as pre-order only, being out on Feb 27.

[SamaNagol]

Nah, they got it at the GW thank you day for people who worked at Games Day couple weeks ago. It's pretty good. Makes it clear that the Thousand Sons had a flaw going back to their inception and sheds light on the depth of Magnus' dabbling with powers he does not fully comprehend.

[Donkey Kong]

As a retired infanteer I have to say no, absolutely not.

The military are obliged to follow the laws of the nation they have sworn to protect.

 

I apologize, I don't see how this was truly relevant to orders or the actions of WW2 Japanese soldiers. However, before I go on, I would like to thank you for for your service to international peace as a whole.

 

I know it's not much more than a saying, but "all is fair in love and war" sums up most feelings about it.

Tokyo was firebombed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked. Stalingrad and Leningrad were under siege for years. Paris was hit by artillery. London was bombed. These were all done under orders and killed millions of soldiers and civilians.

 

War has unjustifiable results, but to say that orders aren't law is sort of pushing it. What would have happened had Tibbits not dropped "Little Boy"? He'd have been punished for not following orders. In Stalingrad, when Stalin ordered "not one step back", he meant it, and the millions of dead soviets from that battle alone make that point. Soviets who tried to run away were shot for disloyalty, not chased down and tried for desertion, not jailed, shot.

 

Soldiers are somewhat above the law, I would think. In the United States, for example, soldiers cannot be quartered in homes, putting them under the law. However, if a civilian kills anyone, he is a murdered, if a soldier kills someone, or if they kill lots of people or important people, they are heroes. Simo Hayha, the Finnish sniper, has the greatest number of kills in any conflict when he was fighting the Soviets. (Source: Wikipedia) When the war was over, he went hunting with the Finnish President.

 

When [simo was] asked if he regretted killing so many people, he said "I did what I was told to as well as I could."

 

I know it's an old example, but in the Second World War, Nazi and Japanese scientists and soldiers committed all sorts of crimes on civilians and prisoners of war. They used them for experiments, the Nazi's tried to exterminate all kinds of people (homosexuals, gypsies, jews, etc.), Japanese soldiers beat and killed women during the Nanking Massacre and used captured Chinese for bayonet practice.

 

I sincerely feel that war crimes aren't crimes.

It can be said that the Treaty of Versailles was criminal for deciding Germany's fate after the first world war without their involvement.

It can be said that it was criminal to drop barrels upon barrels full of agent orange and napalm in Vietnam.

It can be said that it was criminal to attack enemy civilians for the sole purpose of inspiring fear or getting at resources.

 

From Wikipedia, central points of the Laws of War are:

* Wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that started the war (e.g., territorial control) and should not include unnecessary destruction;

* Wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible;

* People and property that do not contribute to the war effort should be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship;

 

Like the "necessary and proper clause" in the US Constitution, what is "unnecessary" destruction? Is it "unnecessary" to destroy a weapons factory? How about a hospital where wounded enemy soldiers are being treated? What about a high school where new enemy soldiers are being recruited from? God forbid an explosive misses. What if insurgents are hiding amongst civilians (who may or may not support and contribute to the war effort)? Should the area be bombed and excused as "aiding the enemy"?

 

How do you intend to end a war "as quickly as possible" when insurgents fight a never ending holy war? How do you end a war against guerrillas without wiping out a country?

 

As I said 2 posts ago, when a nation is in total war, everyone is working for the war effort. In the First and Second World Wars men were drafted to fight, women volunteered as army nurses and took up jobs in factories producing weapons for the war, students trained for the army and little children joined the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. In the United States, civilians were told to conserve food for soldiers, "Meatless Mondays", "Wheat-less Wednesdays" and "Victory Gardens" are almost perfect terms for the sacrifices the people made. Factories that were intended to build cars were transformed into tank factories, was that "necessary"?

 

There are no saints in war. In the First World War, some Americans blamed the Red Cross for prolonging the war by not letting soldiers die. If a doctor were to do something along those lines for a civilian, that doctor would be at risk for so many different offenses to the Hippocratic Oath.

 

It's almost wrong of me to ask, but if a commanding officer ordered you to run up a hill, clear a road or torture a spy/ insurgent would you hesitate, or would you listen? If you were ordered to clear a village of insurgents and you were attacked by a seemingly innocent civilian, would you fire? If you knew that women and children were armed with concealed bombs (like shoeshine box bombs in Vietnam) and you were ordered to fire only when fired upon or attacked, would you give into paranoia and shoot every shoeshine boy (the very action that labeled soldiers in Vietnam as baby killers) or would you follow orders and wait for something to happen?

 

Morals are really skewered in the real world. Human life is a very complex thing to imagine. Ruthless attacks made by soldiers on all sides, whether through gas attacks or massacres (done by all sides) rarely differ in the result. A death by Agent Orange or a death by a bullet is still a death. A refined process like the Nazi death camps where people were killed with poison gas can be called less cruel than being used for Japanese bayonet practice or even being used for experimentation.

 

I'm inclined to believe that the media should keep its nose out of wars. Any group which wishes to paint its own defenders in a negative light isn't worth of their protection (or so I feel).

 

Funny how this went from Space Wolves to war atrocities, no?

[Karack Blackstone]

Funny how this went from Space Wolves to war atrocities, no?

 

We're dealing with the very question of how much of humanity's moral compass can be said to remain in the 31st Millenium. So it can be relevant, it's only a question of how much it is relevant.

 

Otherwise, we simply have that things had deteriorated to the point that the Emperor's Great Crusade was itself affected by the loss of moral sense at the time that it was proceeding, meaning that the chance at corruption may have already begun.

 

To note, I personally support all moral war fighters, and anyone that can get through the training and make a difference out there is stronger for it in my book.

 

As far as the situation on the ground in the books is concerned, I personally feel that this debate needs to keep in perspective that as discussed what Horus declared to the Wolves was skewed by his desire to distract from his own attack on Terra, and keep all Imperial attention in terms of traitors busy. The fact that the Sons of Russ were sent would seem to show that the Emperor had at least some semblance of a plan of how to deal with a traitor legion.

 

The major debate I want to have is what was behind Magnus' not knowing that things could get so far off track as to him not following the laws of Mankind in his time, thinking that he knew better than the Emperor. I may have to read both books, however I do want to say this, and I hope it comes out right:

 

Why do we always forget our morality when it's most convenient, as a people?