One of the distinguishing characteristics of modern society is the notion that a war can be either moral or immoral. Attacking a neighboring country to get a natural resource would be considered immoral. Defending against that attack would be moral.

World War II is a good recent example of a war between an obvious aggressor and its targets. The axis did not rely on modern ethics to justify themselves, they simply said "we are superior, so we conquer". The allied powers fought not to gain anything, but to defend themselves.

One point that is learned during every war, then promptly forgotten before the next war, is that morality belongs to individuals not to countries. Even as the nazi machine was killing millions of innocent civilians there were individual nazis trying to stop those acts. Also, as the allies were trying to contain the expansion of the axis armies there were some influential Americans who were trying to help the nazis.

Charles Lindbergh was widely respected as a forward looking person before World War II. Why would a person like him support nazi Germany? The answer may have been elusive at the time, but it has been answered. As Charles Lindbergh got older and became acquainted with other cultures he lost the racist outlook that had motivated his support of the nazis. In other words the only difference between a nazi Lindbergh and an egalitarian Lindbergh was age or experience.

The opposite is as important. Can a person "mature" into a nazi? There is no doubt that there is a maturity that comes through time and that maturity goes only in the direction of tolerance. When there is a person who has strong intolerances in old age those intolerances are just carried forward from youth (though the target may vary).

The important point about the maturity towards tolerance that develops in people is that it only develops in individuals. It does not develop in groups. That means that there is no such thing as a moral group. One of the most immoral types of person is the one who joins a "moral group".