The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Raynor]

and does Tolkien state how old these children were?

I am not aware that he does.

What mother wouldn't happily see her children killed for playing at being Orcs?

You are mixing the situations in an uncalled for manner. I have never argued such a thing. You can see that from the quote above this.

As I stated earlier, in Robert Foster's Complete Guide to Middle-earth Miriel is stated to have been one of the faithful, & Christopher Tolkien himself praises that book for its accuracy.

May I see a direct refference from Tolkien anyway?

So, in Tolkien's opinion the 'extermination' of the German people could not be justified - whatever they had done - even 'consenting to a Dictator'.

Nothing in that quote exonerates the germans on behalf of fear. That was the initial statement made by Lal, which is unsuporter by this particular letter. Furthermore, we would need to establish where the analogy with the germans should stop - ideology and manipulation doesn't match Sauron's marring, and anything that the nazis did doesn't amount to an actual attack on Valinor.

You are assuming Tolkien said that the downfall of Numenor was a Noachian situation. He did not. He said the escape of Elendil was a Noachian situation, which it was to a small extent (in that Noah is said to have led the only human survivors of a cataclysm whereas Elendil leads the survivors of one cataclysm and other humans continue regardless of it). But one chapter of a novel does not define the whole. Especially when we are told what it is meant to represent.

Nothing warrants restricting the religious comparison only to Elendil; that qualifier isn't found. One similarity doesn't exclude the others. This still is a false dillemma.

There simply is no argument.

So exceptions are possible?

Yes.

As would Numenor without its Fleet.

Numenor still intact would have Sauron and most likely other servants at his will. The system would continue.

So the Children of Numenor were more 'evil' than fully grown Numenoreans on the Mainland?

If not by choice, then by Sauron's marrring.

If that was the 'best' he could do, I'm not impressed.

Well, if you could give a better solution...

So burning them alive would have been ok if there had been proof? Its not that burning someone alive is wrong in & of itself, only if you have no evidence?

The point was that there was nothing to justify taking their life. And I believe no one should be burned. I also don't believe in the capital punishment that still is practiced today in certain countries - it does little after the fact. I am interested to explore if there were better approaches than Eru's to Numenor.

And you're still saying its ok to kill 'evil' children.

Ok, let me ask you too: do you think a parent would rather have his children grow up to be instruments of the most horrible evil that can be conceived than not live at all? I agree, again, that this is the most crucial part of the debate.

Killing someone does not guarantee their free will.

Free will doesn't come with a white check to do unrestrained evil, against one's self or others. If violence can be avoided, free will respected and life preserved, I agree it is the best way out.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I am not aware that he does.
You are mixing the situations in an uncalled for manner. I have never argued such a thing. You can see that from the quote above this.

I'll be honest. I'm not sure exactly what you are arguing as far as 'evil' children are concerned.

Nothing in that quote exonerates the germans on behalf of fear. That was the initial statement made by Lal, which is unsuporter by this particular letter. Furthermore, we would need to establish where the analogy with the germans should stop - ideology and manipulation doesn't match Sauron's marring, and anything that the nazis did doesn't amount to an actual attack on Valinor.

You see, I'm stepping back from that one, 'cos that last point is just too wierd.

Ok, let me ask you too: do you think a parent would rather have his children grow up to be instruments of the most horrible evil that can be conceived than not live at all? I agree, again, that this is the most crucial part of the debate.

I don't think you understand how parents think about their children. No parent would wish their child to grow up to do evil, but no parent would wish to see their child killed.

Free will doesn't come with a white check to do unrestrained evil, against one's self or others. If violence can be avoided, free will respected and life preserved, I agree it is the best way out.

Eru took away the Numenoreans' free will when he killed them, because in assaulting Valinor they were exercising said free will.

However, this is going round in circles. And I noticed something interesting.

The Akalabeth states that Eru was responsible for the Fall of Numenor, & that is the accepted version of the story. However, in the Letter to Milton Waldman of Collins Tolkien gives an alternative:

The Valar lay down their delegated power & appeal to God, & receive the power & permission to deal with the situation: the old world is broken & changed. A chasm is opened in the sea & Tar-Calion (sic) & his armada is engulfed. Numenor itself on the edge of the rift topples & vanishes for ever with all its glory in the abyss.

Now, there are a couple of interesting things here. First, this is a very different situation, in that Eru does not destroy Numenor, the Valar do - Eru simply gives them the power & authority to do so. In this scenario he is not personally responsible. And neither are the Valar.

Think about it - the Valar are described as acting effectively in self-defence - they don't trash Numenor on purpose - their intention is merely to remove Valinor out of harm's way, it just so happens that the Island is on the edge of the rift & falls in. One can almost hear Manwe's tortured cri de cour echoing from the heights of Taniquetil: 'Doh!'

Point being: the Valar in this version did not destroy Numenor with malice aforethought, & therefore could not be held morally accountable - & those of us who have a problem with the 'official' version would not (i suspect) have such a problem with this one.

So the other interesting thing to speculate on is why Tolkien chose the version where Eru is directly responsible for the destruction of Numenor over the one where the Valar are indirectly responsible. The 'Valar are responsible but its not really their fault' ( or TVARBINRTF) version is certainly easier to stomach than the 'Eru is responsible & it really is his fault' (or EIR&IRIHF) version, & no-one, really, comes off looking too bad in a moral sense.

Quite interesting, also, that the Second Edition of The Sil has the Letter as a Foreword, so the reader first of all reads TVARBINRTF before the EIR&IRIHF version.

Now, one recalls that Tolkien quoted Chesterton in OFS (on the subject of why children like the 'cruel' punishments meted out to villains in many traditional tales) along the lines of Children are innocent & prefer justice, while we (adults) are wicked & therefore prefer mercy. Does this apply here: 'Children' being 'innocent' prefer the EIR&IRIHF (conspiracy) version, because it clearly depicts Eru punishing the Numenoreans for their sins, while we 'grown-ups' would perhaps choose TVARBINRTF (Cock-up), where it was all an accident?