Good Side and Bad Side in War?

[napoleon boneaparte]

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?

[hellheaven1987]

It might be a good thing for long term if Prussia lost Seven Years War, badly.

[Ciabhán]

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.

[hellheaven1987]

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.

[Cyclops]

... 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.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

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.

[hellheaven1987]

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.

[Cyclops]

...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.

[Nikitn]

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.

The side making warcrimes a policy were the allies with their terror bombing (basically terrorism which was aimed at murdering as many civillians as possible). The soviets did nothing of this scale.

OP: it simply depends on if the side is an unprovoked agressor (bad) or defender (good).

[Tiberios]

No the Soviets never did anything like that.

And no, German war crimes didn't justify the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Eastern Prussia and the new Polish territories.

[Logios]

Dresden can be countered with Coventry (sp?), and the fact the Germans started bombing civilians first.

Or you could say two wrongs does not make a right.
To the extent of my knowledge and googling ability, no sides of any conflict has ever entirely obeyed the Geneva convention after this was ratified (or before for that matter), and should this be used to distinguish between Good/Bad sides in conflicts, then I suppose there are only Bad sides, or possibly Bad vs Worse.
As to the ongoing discussion about whom wore the baddest hats in WWII the Second Sino-Japanese war with its 17-22 mil. civilian casualities and use and testing of biological weapons is perhaps a bit overlooked, but I am not sure if it beats the events already mentioned (concentration camps, nukes, strategic bombings, retaliations on civilians ect.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

[hellheaven1987]

And no, German war crimes didn't justify the ethnic cleansing of Germans from Eastern Prussia and the new Polish territories.

And in Czechoslovakia, although be honest many Germans were "volunteerly" left before the actual cleansing happened.

[Kranos]

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

[MaximiIian]

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.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

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

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

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.

[EmperorBatman999]

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.

[Krieglord]

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.

[hellheaven1987]

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.

[Imperial]

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.