Popping in here with a few observations . . . . My take is that Tolkien was not writing an allegory of his century (see his comments in the Foreward to the Second Edition of LotR) so I fail to see how arguments about who started what war in that century have any bearing on LotR. Much of this thread sounds like an opportunity to argue about war in the Twentieth Century. The applicability to LotR is tenuous, which after all owes more to ancient battle epics and sagas than to Carl Von Clausewitz's
On War. Lost in all of this (at least for this boring old Tolkien reader) is the question of whether it is appropriate to blame Gandalf for the events of the Scouring of the Shire.
I would, however, like to make a humble comment on the use of the digital symbol @, to address the arguments of fellow Downers. My reservations about this might be due to English being my native language, and so perhaps any sensitivies about using @ to address posters would not belong to those who are not as familiar with English as I am. However, using @ to address a person reminds me very strongly of the English phrase, "have at" someone or something. In the Wiktionary (which admittedly is not the only dictionary), the archaic phrase is said to mean "to attack or engage in combat with." At dictionary.com, the definition is given as, "to go at vigorously; attack". While such an association might be well suited to the topic of warfare, I find it a tad harsh for our dour, staid, polite habits on the Downs. While it doesn't quite merit the description of a flame, it leans a bit too much towards internet attacks, particularly in a thread where feelings about responsibility for recent wars obviously touch personal nerves and where comments are verging on the personal. Could we please forgo using @ to address comments to particular posters and rely on that very handy device called "quote" which is readily available?
Really, I think the question that Gandalf was responsible for the deaths of hobits is too close to post modern deconstructions of meanings to be, well, meaningful. LotR begins with a detailed and affectionate look at hobbit culture--which is not devoid of violence--remember the Bonfire Glade and the battle with the trees of the Old Forest--and ends with a depiction of the consequences of the War of the Ring on that culture. It's a full circle and to suggest that Gandalf could have avoided it is, I think, to miss both the narrative closure and the consequence of war, even distant war. It is, after all, as Tolkien said he wanted, a ripping good yarn, fantasy, and not history.
Now, boys, I'll let you back to your war games.
