Visit the original place where these letters of comment appeared ar the Avengers Message Board

See Ian's parody fan fiction from Baron Zemo's Lair at The Hooded Hood's Homepage of Doom

Go back to the Index

Captain America Kills

Captain America #321 depicted a scenario in which an ULTIMATUM terrorist turned his machine gun on a crowd of hostages. Cap, without his shield, had to act to preserve the innocents who were dying and about to die at the villain's hand, seized up a gun and shot the terrorist dead.

This was the start of a long-running plotline as Cap came to terms with having to take a person's life - "the ultimate denial of a person's liberty" as he called it - which segued into the John Walker Super Patriot/Cap loses his confidence and maybe his edge/ new Captain America storyline. In Cap #322 Steve Rogers states that the ULTIMATUM incident was the first time he had ever taken a human life. And that set off a correspondence in the letters page which revealed the editorial and writers' view of the then-Cap creators on the issue of Cap's wartime record.

"American Graffiti" in Cap #327 printed a number of letters expressing support for Cap's actions and surprise that he was so shaken at having to take a life. Surely he had been a soldier in World War II, where he had fought and killed many times? This is what the letters' page editorial response was:

"As far as Cap killing in WWII, here's the scoop. Neither Cap nor the Invaders ever carried guns behind enemy lines during the War. They were never actively engaged in combat with the Axis militia, but concentrated their efforts against Nazi super-agents and their leaders. All this is to say that Captain America never sought to kill anyone on the battlefield. It probably happened that soldiers who shot at Cap were hit by their own ricocheting bullets, but that's not the same as Cap shooting someone. We can't deny that Cap was at the center of a lot of bloodshed during the Big One, but he himself never intentionally shed another man's blood. The Ultimatum incident in Cap #321 was the first time Cap intentionally took someone's life. All clear?"

It wasn't clear. The letters page in the following issue once again raised the theme. Correspondent Pierre Comtois pointed out: "Here's a quick rundown of what Cap has been depicted as doing to the enemy during the war. TALES OF SUSPENSE #63: Cap forced Dr Erskine's killer into a bank of machinery, killing him, and later destroys a Nazi submarine (in the retelling of Cap's origin in CAP #108 he actually punches the killer into Erskine's machinery, killing him). TALES OF SUSPENSE #67: Bucky blows up a roomful of Nazis with a grenade, then kills a platoon of Nazis with a burp gun. CAPTAIN AMERICA #100: Cap holds off hordes of Zemo's men with a high-powered pistol. CAPTAIN AMERICA #109: Cap and Bucky toss grenades at Nazis, killing them all. Cap even says 'As long as I live, I'll dedicate myself to fighting... to destroying the enemies of liberty.' CAPTAIN AMERICA #112: Bucky fires a machine gun at Nazis. Cap also fires a pistol at unseen foes. Admittedly a lot of the above killing is Bucky's doing, but I don't see him killing people in Cap's presence without his permission or training."

In answer, the editor writes: "Gee, Pierre, we frankly don't know where you get the idea we're revising history - has there been some kind of history-altering crisis we didn't hear about? We may make revelations about old events now and then or... have to decide which of two conflicting accounts is closer to the truth, but wholesale revisions? Not that we know off" [Ok, so that's not really relevant to this post, but I couldn't resist quoting it] "Now as to your citations of Cap's war record, we do not deny that enemy soldiers died regularly because of cap's actions. Still, Cap never regularly carried a gun, nor was his mission to kill as many of the enemy as he could. His mission was to destroy 'the enemies of liberty' which are the concepts of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, not the individuals who espouse them. True, you cannot attack abstractions - you can only attack the individuals who act in accordance with them. But it's an important distinction. Further to the point, soldiers at war play by different rules than civilians at peace and Cap has had years to make peace with himself about his wartime actions. We're not saying that Cap is or ever was a pacifist, but he does have a profound respect for human life. It is a respect which has grown as he has matured, and includes respect for the lives of his individual enemies. Killing an enemy is always Cap's last resort, and every death he's ever been responsible for has taken its toll on his inner peace."

So what are we to make of all this? I suppose that if we stretch a point we can say that Cap's wartime use of a gun was non-lethal, although he clearly condoned Bucky using lethal force. We can argue that the death of Erskine's assassin was accidental. We have to accept that the ULTIMATUM terrorist is the first life that Cap has consciously chosen to take.

But Cap is the last person who can be accused of being a hypocrite. If it was morally acceptable for Allied soldiers defending their homes and way of life against fascist aggression to use killing force to achieve their objective, then it was no less morally acceptable for Cap to do so. If it was morally unacceptable, Cap would hardly have been battling alongside them.

And here we come onto dangerous ground. Does this all imply some condemnation of those soldiers who did kill in defence of their country? Is Cap somehow "purer" than the soldiers who fought and bloodied their hands in the name of freedom because he refused to use lethal force even if that was the most effective way of getting the mission accomplished? What we might applaud as high ideals in peacetime begin to look like priggish, dangerous affections in war.

It's an uncomfortable continuity problem. I suppose we have to compromise on the unlikely premise that Cap just never got into a situation where he had to take a life, but would have despite his high regard for life if he had to.

Superheroes That Kill A response to a reply from Paste Pot Pete

Paste Pot Pete raises a few serious questions that need a few serious answers.

First, he asks if in failing to kill a super-villain Spider-Man is therefore responsible for the subsequent murders of that villain. The answer to this is no. The villain is responsible. Does Spidey share some blame? Again, no. Spider-Man has neither the moral right nor the ability to accurately judge whether killing an enemy is "the right thing" if it is not in the immediate defence of human life.

Let's look at another example cited a little further down Pete's post. At the end of the Kree/Shi'ar War a breakaway team of Avengers went to execute the Supreme Intelligence because he had effectively committed genocide. They could have chosen to confine him themselves, or to capture him for trial by the Shi'ar, or even to seek some judicial view on Earth, but believing none of these alternatives to be acceptable, a group went and did their best to kill him.

In actual fact the intelligence survived and returned to plot and scheme again. But without the Supreme Intelligence's intervention in Avengers Forever, Rick Jones would be dead and Immortus would be the unchallenged supreme master of time, having wiped the Avengers and done whatever he liked thereafter. So in that instance, by Pete's argument, those Avengers would have been responsible for all the deaths and destruction that Immortus would then cause because in this case they chose to kill the enemy - and that accusation is no more founded than the one against Spider-Man.

Then Pete raises Captain America's refusal to kill the Red Skull in Cap#300. He cites an example of how he might seek to kill someone who had harmed his sister. I can understand that, and I might even do the same thing given similar circumstances with my family. But that still doesn't make it the RIGHT thing to do. And Cap, bless him, always strives for the right thing, and nearly always gets there. Cap holds to the belief that any person can be redeemed as long as they live, and I guess deep down Steve has to allow for the possibility that one day abused, twisted Johann Shmitt might just realise that he's been missing the point of living all these years. In the meantime Cap will work to lock him up, to keep him from harming another single person if he can; but he has to allow even the Red Skull, arguably the most detestable villain in the Marvel Universe, the opportunity to change.

Implicit in this is a question about how far a super-hero can go in meting out justice. Pete asks about the Punisher (the pre-angelic version, of course). My view? The guy's a mass-murderer, whatever twisted justification he might think he has. Give him the chair - but only after proper judicial process. In any society there has to be a way of enforcing law and of dealing with those who menace that society. Over centuries we have developed a system of doing this which is as fair as we can make it, in which cases both in accusation and defence of the alleged criminal are weighed by impartial people and then appropriate action is decided by a law-versed judge. Tempting as it is to abrogate this system, especially when it seems to be inefficient or ineffective, to do so weakens the very society that the vigilante seeks to defend. Frank Castle offs punk drug dealers and petty crooks. Daredevil ties them up and puts them through the courts. And some of DD's catches get off on technicalities; and some serve sentences and reoffend; and maybe some get picked up by the Social Services department and the probation service and actually get a real second chance and make good and settle down and raise kids and become upstanding and productive members of society. None of the Punisher's enemies get that chance.

Or to put it another way, if the Punisher had been around at the time and offed Hawkeye, Quicksilver, the Scarlet Witch, and the Black Widow before Avengers #16 the Marvel Universe would be dead right now.