Our discussion in class today kept me thinking about this whole notion of whether WW2 was really a morally ambiguous or straight cut war. Certainly, I would find it hard to argue that at least in Allied countries it was PERCEIVED as a morally unambiguous war. Afterall, many people call WW2 the last good war, because after that, few wars garnered so much public support. That being said, WW2 in truth, was not a morally clean war. It was a war which resulted in the dropping of two atomic bombs which to this day, is still a point of moral contention for some people. And certainly, Allied actions following WW1 created conditions ripe for the rise of Adolph Hitler. I think this is interesting though, because again it reflects these two types of mentality about moral responsibility. One could argue that the allies were ultimately responsible for the rise of Hitler by creating terrible economic conditions in Germany etc etc... On the other hand, one could argue that despite this, the morally reprehensible actions Hitler took were ultimately of his own accord. To put this into more modern terms... no one doubts that poverty and the environment can affect whether a child grows up to be in a gang or criminal. But where do we draw the line for accountability. Do we let a juvenile criminal walk free because his crime was ultimately the outcome of an unfair system that society has created? Or do we hold him to his actions despite his upbringing. I'm not espousing a particular position here, but just expanding on these two thought processes which Randy and Avi seem to have.