So, why was Nazi Germany evil again? I mean, before the Holocaust had been brought up into the spotlights after the war. I'm pretty sure it couldn't be because they attacked Poland, seeing how it's basic interests were a non-issue at Yalta. Same with the annexation of Czechoslovakia. Probably not because they attacked the Soviets, as preemptive strikes seem to be a good thing, and hell, on a sliding scale of grayness vs blackness, Stalin was way darker.
The "justness" of IIWW seems to me rather strongly coloured by the winner's bias.
Because Yalta was fucked up, therefore Poland and Czechoslovakia don't matter? I'm not sure if I follow that line of reasoning. The USSR was as bad as Nazi Germany, true, however that doesn't change the fact that said Nazi Germany was directly invading peoples in an attempt to TAKE OVER EUROPE (a successful one at that) makes them the worse of the two evils, at least Stalin was willing to kinda help out. Enemy of my enemy and all.
Let's see Germany took all of central Europe, Invaded the USSR, steamrolled Belgium, stormed France, and bombed Britian. That's close enough to invading everything for Breadbock's sentiment to be true.
Strife26 => there is nothing special about being fascinated for war, every kid is.
I'm not going to dignify that with a response more than that I'd expect better than that sort of attack from you.
One nation should always be prepared for war, but should use force as the latest option available.
And there we see that you are American, and that the battle were not happening on your ground. You'd be singing another song.
I meant that if ww2 had happened in America, you wouldn't want to live it. Not with the possibility that your family was next under the bombs.
In WWII? Fuck yeah I'd like to be there. If in your hypothetical, the tide of the war is so desperate that we're looking at invasion of US homeland, than I damn well want to be there, because violent types like me are exactly what would be needed.
The idea that one nation should have a powerful army to keep the order hasn't and doesn't work. That's what America's tried to do. We were okay at it when there was a the threat of the soviets and europe at our back, but now that there isn't an opposition, it's *breaking* us. Look at how fucked up the world's sole hyperpower is now. The only way for a power based equilibrium to remain in place would be for there to be several powers, all that are at least semi-moral. Which doesn't work well in practice, because it'd take an awful big unmorality to get them moving (see Darfur).
I'm in a desert that's been blood soaked for years, on land that was Iran's not all that long ago, get woken up by old munitions being destroyed this morning, and regularly have to worry about stepping on landmines and other remnants of war. Do you think *anywhere* *ever* recovers from it's war scars?
My point, exactly.
[/quote]
So why do you think that it's a fair complaint that you found an old shell casing? Big bloody deal man, you can find war remnants everywhere you go.
A militaristic mindset is a *requirement* of an effective "good" army. You say that if Germany wasn't so militaristic, WWII wouldn't have happened. I say that if the US wasn't so Isolationist, the French so unprepared, and the English so concerned with avoiding problems, WWII wouldn't have happened because Germany *never* would have been allowed to rearm while becoming so obviously evil.
No, you're wrong. France, England, and Belgium were not unprepared. We had plenty of soldiers, and equipment that cost us a fortune. I visited the forts not long ago, they are huge, and were well armed for the time. We had our ass handed to us because we were a war late.
No, I'm right. Europe wasn't prepared to fight the war that they needed to fight. France and Belgium clearly weren't doing what they should have been while England only geared up at the last moment (America was no different, note)
Beside, we, in Europe had a great military mindset for centuries. And wars every 20 years or so.
Rarely a clear victor, and the next war always build over the ressentiment for the last. Is this the cycle of violence you want to perpetuate?
Not really, Europe's great military mindset was always based on wars fought over stuff. Land, titles, power. Not morals, and certainly not defense of people or justice.
WWII was triggered by the Versailles treaty.
And economic depression, ideological turmoil and racism, but that mostly stemmed from Versailles so yeah.
God, what it would have been like to have lived in Germany at that time. Amazing insight into how humans work.
http://www.galactanet.com/comic/view.php?strip=267Seriously though, Versailles is a very good example of what *not* to do after you've won the "War to end all Wars."
Best example of why there must be compassion and mercy in victory.
War is necessary only insofar as one side is willing to use bare force to control people or things, when this condition exists (and it *does* exist), it's the job of the "good" guys (and I use this term with all due hesitance, as Armies are innately destructive and inefficient, however there's always a good guy in a just war) [...]
No. I know you said you hesitated to use the word, but I can not stress this enough: While there are wars that are necessary insofar that they are unavoidable, and wars that might be called just, there is never a "good" guy in a war. Whenever killing people becomes a reality, your side loses all claims they might have of being "good", no matter the reason for why they're killing.
That depends on one's definition of good. To bring myself up again, I'm a horrible, violent person. Certainly not "good," that doesn't mean that I can't do good things with my life. In a just war, one side is justified, making them the "good" guys.
A militaristic mindset is a *requirement* of an effective "good" army. You say that if Germany wasn't so militaristic, WWII wouldn't have happened. I say that if the US wasn't so Isolationist, the French so unprepared, and the English so concerned with avoiding problems, WWII wouldn't have happened because Germany *never* would have been allowed to rearm while becoming so obviously evil.
[...]
See WWII for the best example, but you can find it in just about every war that was preceded by a "let's be peaceful!! movement"
This is just obvious nonsense. Even if it was true, which it is not, it should be equally clear that every war was preceded by a "let's be warful!! movement".
Furthermore, you do realise that the only reason western Europe has not broken down into another war is that these last 70 years has been framed by such a movement of peace, co-operation and mutual benefit? I'm not saying that's going to last forever - nothing does - but that is pretty much the record for the region. Had not France, Germany and Britain and all the minor players been willing to put aside centuries worth of hate, aggression and conflict and work together, no such lasting peace could ever have been built.
Peaceful? Really? Why did France, Germany, and Britain all work together after WWII? I'd, without a doubt, argue that it's because they were smart enough to see that repeating the mistakes of Versailles would be a very bad thing (see Marshal Plan instead), but most importantly a really big red star. Europe was reforged on the basis of worrying about Communism and the USSR. If that's peaceful, then I'll start referring to my brigade as "3rd Advise and Assist Brigade" instead of "Heavy Brigade Combat Team Grey Wolf"
I'd also contend that "Let's be warful" is usually more of "Shit. War's abrewing and we've disarmed ourselves in the meantime (as it's a near-universal truth, whenever you win a war, slash the army down, then hurriedly build it up on the old plans once the next one is apparent)"
And how about this: Up until our dear little Afghani war, Sweden had not been in one for over 200 years. And this is not only because our glorified "neutrality", it is also because Sweden made an effort not to go to war. When Norway demanded independence from the Swedish-Norwegian union, for example, the Scandinavian peninsula were inches from eruption (or collapsing) into flames, with Sweden's own king and head-of-state publicly propagating for war (despite being bound by law to not make any political opinions heard), and yet we decided peace was more gainful, and left the last, pitiful little memories of greatness behind.
And that's great for Scandinavia. But where's the use of force to control something? There's nothing wrong with a nation-state not being a wartime power (heck if I don't love Sweden and Lichtenstein), but only as far as someone else is there to protect them (or that they are able to protect themselves) from outside aggressors. However, if everyone was neutral like that, who'd correct abuses in the darker corners of the world? Make no mistake, evil happens, and damn little usually happens before it becomes a full war.
And lastly, Germany wasn't very "obviously evil", especially not in comparison to the countries it would later end up fighting. Antisemitism was rampant in both Europe and the USA, and the only reason such sentiment became something horrible or even undesirable was because the Enemy was doing it - the Holocaust could easily have ended up being perpetrated in any of the Allied countries, had it not happened in Germany. Eugenics, racial and/or national "hygiene", and other practices in the same race-biological spirit was was well established in all of these countries, America's own eugenic policies even inspired the Nazis in this regard. What we look back in horror of today was considered normal and benefitual (to the race/country/nation or any combination of these) back then, and only became bad when people needed something to morally rally behind against the Enemy.
Come on. That's not even a good use of slippery slope argument. We didn't, they did. What more do you want? If America had slipped down the path of that sort of insanity, it'd be the responsibility of the rest of the world to stop us.
I agree, just on the basis that there exist just wars. If a war is just, then it doesn't matter who fires first, in fact, if the "good" side (talking in terms of a lighter shade of grey in a black vs grey world) is going to gain an advantage (thereby saving lives in the long run) it's immoral for them *not* to take it. See also preventive war and preemptive war. Preemptive war (NATO is going to launching a full scale attack in 72 hours, therefore we'll have our tanks through the Fulda Gap in 48, to use my ever required Red Storm Rising example) is certainly justified, while Preventive war often is (Operation Opera, for example, or operations undertook to prevent a crazy-type regime from getting nukes).
There are wars that might be called just, I won't argue with that. The most "just" of all wars, though, are the one fought to defend oneself from an active attacker. It very much matters who makes the first move. By attacking first, even if it's possible it might save lives in the end, your "good" side makes it "just" for the defenders to fight you. With all that entails.
That is the main problem with preemptive warfare. Not much of a way around it, other than the fact that hopefully one side is obviously anti-humanitarian. Else, there gets to be a point where the issue is grey enough that the attackers shouldn't be attacking.
Strife skips lunch and spends what little free time he has to debate on the Internets!
You shouldn't, man. It's not fair to make us argue with you and worry about you at the same time. It makes my conscience all funny.
[/quote]
If it helps, the event that came right after said debating made me throw up anyway, so no real harm was done by my skipping lunch.
Author
Topic: The 67th anniversary of D-day. (Read 5287 times)