Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 107

Thread: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

  1. #1
    napoleon boneaparte's Avatar Hastatas Posterior
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Malaysia
    Posts
    946

    Default Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Whenever people discuss about the teaching of history, the saying 'history is written by the victors' is almost always brought up. Some people, when it comes to debating about WWII, tend to say that the Allies were just as evil as the Axis before pointing out the bombing of Dresden, the mass rapes and massacres by the Soviets, the unlawful killing of concentration camp guards and the A-bombs. But on the other hand, most people tend to agree that the Nazis were a 'little' bonkers when it came to racial purity.

    Take a look at the War of the Austrian Succession. Leopold had gotten almost everyone to agree that his daughter's ascension to the Holy Roman Empire throne would not be challenged. Hey presto, as soon as the oldie hops the twig, Frederick II grabs Silesia and basically drags Austria into a full-blown hell.

    What I'm bringing up is can there be any definite good side and bad side in war and how can they be distinguished?
    “No human race is superior; no religious faith is inferior. All collective judgments are wrong. Only racists make them” ― Elie Wiesel
    "No nationality or race is preferred over another in any way in the Eyes of the Almighty" - Mufti Ismail Menk
    “What's unnatural is homophobia. Homo sapiens is the only species in all of nature that responds with hate to homosexuality.” ― Alex Sanchez
    “Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.” ― Franklin D. Roosevelt
    “Nationalism is an infantile thing. It is the measles of mankind.” ― Albert Einstein

  2. #2
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Praefectus Cohortis
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Somewhere snowing... This damned holiday...
    Posts
    32,856

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    It might be a good thing for long term if Prussia lost Seven Years War, badly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by O'Hea View Post
    The only reason why Charlemagne came into this at all is because Hellheaven thought it'd be a fun way to troll some byzantophiles.

  3. #3
    Tribunus
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    10,384

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    The Nazis were belligerent s trying to bring about the racial purity of the world through genocide. Some Western Allied soldiers commited war crimes here and there but this was not condoned by their superiors. The Soviets made war crimes a policy but they didn't believe in genocide or destroying other people for the benefit of the Russians, despite the policy of Russification.

    Allied strategic bombing actually had a good strategic justification.
    Last edited by romande; February 13, 2013 at 10:09 AM.

  4. #4
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Praefectus Cohortis
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Somewhere snowing... This damned holiday...
    Posts
    32,856

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Quote Originally Posted by irelandeb View Post
    The Soviets made war crimes a policy but they still believe in an idealistic egalitarian world without genocide or any of that crap.
    They just believed in order to reach that idealistic world every capitalist pigs must be murdered first.



    In the end, just like what Clausewitz said, war is not something following your pitiful human laws; civilians were spared only because it made job easier, not because they were innocent or what.
    Last edited by hellheaven1987; February 13, 2013 at 10:12 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by O'Hea View Post
    The only reason why Charlemagne came into this at all is because Hellheaven thought it'd be a fun way to troll some byzantophiles.

  5. #5
    Orphydian's Avatar Princeps Posterior
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Transylvania
    Posts
    1,709

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    I think this thread would be proper adressed at Ethos, Mores and Monastica.

  6. #6
    MaximiIian's Avatar Tribunus Augusticlavii
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Louisville, Kentucky
    Posts
    12,718

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Quote Originally Posted by heil nappy View Post
    What I'm bringing up is can there be any definite good side and bad side in war...?
    I do not personally think so, no. I feel that in a war, there is no "good" side. Regardless of their goals or intents, the simple fact is that they are committing murder on a mass scale. There might be a "more bad" side. But never a "good" one.

  7. #7
    Blatta Optima Maxima's Avatar Definitely banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Free Democratic People's Republic of Latvia
    Posts
    11,050

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    There's no bad side, everyone's just having fun.

  8. #8
    Pili Prior
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,225

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Quote Originally Posted by irelandeb View Post
    ...Allied strategic bombing actually had a good strategic justification.
    Yup those china shops in Dresden were a key element in Hitler's masterplan.

    While many elements of the WAllied air campaigns were courageous and brilliant (such as CAP over the jet airfields and knocking out the bridges and railways) there were malicious and vengeful actions like killing civilians because "they killed some of ours".

    I agree with the basic idea that all war is evil and to be entered into with reluctance. Once you're there you need to win so evil becomes mandatory. That said there has to be a point when the game isn't woirth the candle. The Germans reached it in 1918 when they caved, but in 1945 Hitler died before he'd surrender, and his final plan was to make Germany almost uninhabitable. SO there are levels of evil.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  9. #9
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    10,015

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Also firebombing of civilians is a very controversial decision. I don't really think there is such thing as a good side in war, I certainly don't feel heroic when it comes to any of the World Wars. It just seemed like a bunch of propaganda ads flying around so that everyone would kill each other.

  10. #10
    Equites Alares
    Citizen Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Usually on the hoof or in the wind...
    Posts
    5,855

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    It might be a good thing for long term if Prussia lost Seven Years War, badly.
    If they had we wouldn't be nearly as advanced technology wise as we are. War spurs innovation and the two world wars are responsible for so much of it we'd be a lot further behind than we are now.

    It's odd to think what the long term consequences would be if things were just a little different in the past.

  11. #11
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Praefectus Cohortis
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Somewhere snowing... This damned holiday...
    Posts
    32,856

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ciabhán View Post
    If they had we wouldn't be nearly as advanced technology wise as we are. War spurs innovation and the two world wars are responsible for so much of it we'd be a lot further behind than we are now.
    And what? Human still ing eachother and breed kids in Middle Age.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by O'Hea View Post
    The only reason why Charlemagne came into this at all is because Hellheaven thought it'd be a fun way to troll some byzantophiles.

  12. #12
    EmperorBatman999's Avatar I say, what, what?
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Why do you want to know?
    Posts
    10,930

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    I think in most wars prior to World War II, the bad side was whoever started the war in the first place.

    World War II can be said that the Germans were the bad guys, but the western allies can be seen as good guys. The Soviets really make the morality scale of the allies in total difficult to grade, however.

    Dresden can be countered with Coventry (sp?), and the fact the Germans started bombing civilians first. The atomic bombs are still very controversial, but I wonder what would happen if they hadn't been used? Would we know the power of nuclear weapons (even archaic ones) on an urban area? How many on both sides would die if a traditional land invasion was committed? I am certain the Japanese people wouldn't let allied forces occupy their country as long as they lived, considering the warrior cult and their worship of the emperor.
    Last edited by EmperorBatman999; February 13, 2013 at 07:50 PM.

  13. #13
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Praefectus Cohortis
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Somewhere snowing... This damned holiday...
    Posts
    32,856

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Na, many people simply ignored that the whole British concept of strategical bombing during post-WWI was to bomb hostile civilians as much as possible; the plan was only partially dropped because data suggested civilian casualty generally would not reach what was expected, but it was never completely given up in the end (several alternative proposal, such as using poison gas bombs, were proposed during early 1930s and dropped quickly).

    Then of course we have Allies' Fire Bombing of Japan, which US Air Force made it clear their top objective was to kill as many Japanese civilians as possible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by O'Hea View Post
    The only reason why Charlemagne came into this at all is because Hellheaven thought it'd be a fun way to troll some byzantophiles.

  14. #14
    Krieglord's Avatar Sagittarius
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    3,138

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Their is no good and bad side in war... you choose or its chosen for you

    If I was a neo nazi im going to choose germany as the good side in ww2 where as if I was in the tea party im going to think America was the good side.
    Last edited by Krieglord; February 13, 2013 at 08:48 PM.
    Me playing most strategy game's.. "I have 7 kingdoms to look after and 3 of them are in open rebellion so..."

  15. #15
    Imperial's Avatar Equites
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Florida, US (wang of America)
    Posts
    3,814

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    Then of course we have Allies' Fire Bombing of Japan, which US Air Force made it clear their top objective was to kill as many Japanese civilians as possible.
    I believe their objective was light industry factories, but I'm sure they didn't care if civilians were in the way though.

  16. #16
    Pili Prior
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,225

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ciabhán View Post
    ... War spurs innovation ...
    Not sure about this. War spurs innovation in war, no doubt. There was a spurt of technical innovation in WW1 and WW2, thats true. IIRC the theoretical work on fission was done in the peace of 1919-1938, ditto penecilin, ditto thinking machines, they just were applied to the battlefield in war so maybe its not as much as you'd think.

    The Napoleonic wars saw some innovation in military theory and practice, but once again the groundwork was pre-war: the revolution played as much a part herer, changing social and economic constraints on innovation. England developed some fancy financials in the the Napoleonic wars, and War of the Spanish Succession too.

    In one sense losing a war can lead to a clean slate from which to build toward the next war, so there can be a spurt of innovation (and established military can be complacent and hard to change I guess). Does losing a war spur uinnovation more than participating in one? Many allied developments were catch-ups with German and Russian onesdeveloped in the 1930's: close air support for inf, massed armour, deep operations etc. Germany and Russia were the biggest losers to survive WW1, and innovation was a marked element of their military at the time.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  17. #17
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Praefectus Cohortis
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Somewhere snowing... This damned holiday...
    Posts
    32,856

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Quote Originally Posted by Imperial View Post
    I believe their objective was light industry factories, but I'm sure they didn't care if civilians were in the way though.
    Nope, in that case normal bombs would be enough; US Air Force had made it clear that the adoption of incendiary bombs was to create maximum civilian casualty as possible, in order to demoralize Japanese.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by O'Hea View Post
    The only reason why Charlemagne came into this at all is because Hellheaven thought it'd be a fun way to troll some byzantophiles.

  18. #18
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    10,015

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Nope Hellheaven is right, the objective was declared to be civilians. The Atomic Bomb was also not necessary in ending the war since the Japanese had already asked for terms but the Allies wanted total surrender. It seems to be the Soviet threat which actually caused the Japanese to surrender to the Americans rather than to fight both. But the fire bombing and atomic bombs were most likely also motivated by the "racial inferiority" of the Japanese. One reason that the Japanese did not want to surrender were the rumours and later the publications that the Americans would execute captured Japanese and so this motivated them to fight to the death, that alongside their religious and cultural ideology.

  19. #19
    Shashu
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    199

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Quote Originally Posted by heil nappy View Post
    Whenever people discuss about the teaching of history, the saying 'history is written by the victors' is almost always brought up. Some people, when it comes to debating about WWII, tend to say that the Allies were just as evil as the Axis before pointing out the bombing of Dresden, the mass rapes and massacres by the Soviets, the unlawful killing of concentration camp guards and the A-bombs. But on the other hand, most people tend to agree that the Nazis were a 'little' bonkers when it came to racial purity.

    Take a look at the War of the Austrian Succession. Leopold had gotten almost everyone to agree that his daughter's ascension to the Holy Roman Empire throne would not be challenged. Hey presto, as soon as the oldie hops the twig, Frederick II grabs Silesia and basically drags Austria into a full-blown hell.

    What I'm bringing up is can there be any definite good side and bad side in war and how can they be distinguished?
    The history of WW2 was written using allied and nazi documents to their fullest to piece together what both sides were doing and why and how it effected various battles. You could mention to your friends that nobody considers the Soviets good; it is just that the Nazis were worst; and that where the allies won they restored democratic governments from Greece to Belgium. You should also mention what would have happened in Europe had the nazis won, and that both sides Japanese included bombed cities in order to reduce civilian morale; Dresdon was a tragedy and it shouldn't have happened but wasn't unusual. As for the atomic bombs ask any credible historian if they think an invasion of Japan would have been less costly in lives.

    If there is one thing that is worst for history it is Mel Gibson based cliches.

    Some wars have no good side; but others are without doubt a good side and a bad side. Just ask yourself; what would the nazis have done had they defeated the allies and conquered Europe?

    So the short answer to your question is yes, absolutely yes there are sometimes good sides and bad sides in war.

  20. #20
    Shashu
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    199

    Default Re: Good Side and Bad Side in War?

    Quote Originally Posted by money View Post
    Nope Hellheaven is right, the objective was declared to be civilians. The Atomic Bomb was also not necessary in ending the war since the Japanese had already asked for terms but the Allies wanted total surrender. It seems to be the Soviet threat which actually caused the Japanese to surrender to the Americans rather than to fight both. But the fire bombing and atomic bombs were most likely also motivated by the "racial inferiority" of the Japanese. One reason that the Japanese did not want to surrender were the rumours and later the publications that the Americans would execute captured Japanese and so this motivated them to fight to the death, that alongside their religious and cultural ideology.
    I wonder how much the Germans in Berlin, Dresden and Nuremberg felt about how helpful being white was to not being bombed. Germany was devastated by the USAF, which had the same commander&chief as the Navy. Harry Trumans reason for dropping the bomb is very well documented; and he saved millions of lives by doing so. As far as the officers go even if they were all racists their tactics were the same as the ones used against Germany so racial inferiority was certainly not a factor unless you could provide proof that the early to mid 19th century no nothings who formed the Republican Party were reborn.

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •