"Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō
Wait a moment please, two exeples:
American Civil War: Fighting against slavery it's morally right, it's also a duty for any man who likes be called man.
WWII: Bombing, fighting, destroing the Nazi Geman Regime was not only a moral duty but also the only right thing to do to stop a mass genocide against Jews, homosexuals, Slavs, Gypsies, Christians, socialists and all the people of good will killed by the Nazis.
The war is always the wrong way, in war there is always someone who is able to exploit advantages for his part, war is always a horror, but it's also a horror watching a band of criminals killing people and doing nothing to stop them.
WWII: when attacked- you fight! I'm have serious reservations that if Germany had not invaded Poland, but executed 1000s of Jews and other minorities, other powers would had stepped in.
No matter how you slice it the only shade of grey for world war two is if Stalin was morally better then Hitler. I don't think anyone doubts that a Soviet Soldier was on a morally much higher level then a German soldier however.
Your second point doesn't make sense, since I already stated that states do not act immorally anymore than they act morally. A state will always act amorally/ or out of its own self- interest, which addresses your first point. It is in the state's self interest to protect itself.
Let's look at the War of Austrian Succession. Frederick the Great took the opportunity to gain Silesia- he acted out of his own self- interest. It wasn't immoral, it was an opportunity to increase his power and wealth and he took it. States that fought with Austria did so, not out ethical reasons, but out of their own self- interested needs.
Pike, you are right about many points here, but the morality of the politicians has to follow other rules than the morality of the common people, Machiavelli founded on this basis the modern Political Science.
Anyway I agree, if you are attacked you have to fight, and sadly I agree also on the conclusions: Until the allies could wait, how many deaths would be necessary to move their arses?
My pessimism is growing.......
One side's culture produced heroism even in the face of nearly 100% chance of defeat while the other sides culture produced some of the most evil activities humans have ever done.
Lebensraum was not the standard way armies behaved in 1939-1945; it wasn't done to Germany Austria and Hungary during World War One it was something nazi Germany came up with.
In contrast the culture in Poland inspired love for country and a willingness to sacrifice themselves for a less then 1% chance to free their people. I am only using the example of Poland because we started with that as an example;the only nation that would be hard to argue was good and on the allied side would be Stalin's USSR; but even there communist officials did commit horrible atrocities but the ideology allowed them to merely conquer and not utterly destroy. Could you imagine Russians living peacefully in Leningrad; the city where Hitler ordered the population exterminated on the fall of the city had Germans won there? I ask because Germans lived peacefully in Berlin once order was restored and officers finally gave the order to stop pillaging and raping, and there was no massive transfer of Russians into Berlin as colonists.
The nation might not be the sum of it's part but it is the sum of it's culture or else you could say Tsarist Russia was the Roman Dominate; the Tsar's title was exactly the same as Diocletian's, and it was inherited through marriage to a Byzantine Heiress.
Everyone says the North was the good side in the civil war; because Northern Culture didn't produce slave plantations.
Last edited by TheNasoRomaLost; February 20, 2013 at 01:01 AM.
It wasn't the culture that didn't produce slavery, it was geography. Once their respective labor systems took root, it didn't take long for a unique social hierarchy & economic system to develop. If the War had ended in 1861 with the North victorious, I doubt that slavery would had been abolished. Even in 1865, The North was primarily motivated by revenge than a sense of nobility. Don't kid yourself, the war was fought for economic reasons which includes maintaining the peculiar institution in the South.Everyone says the North was the good side in the civil war; because Northern Culture didn't produce slave plantations.
Also on the worst enemy the Germans faced
Crimes-Stalin allowed his men to rape women in conquered nations as a reward, slaughtered intellectuals and officers and soldiers, killed an arbitrary number of conquered people as a warning to future rebels. He also determined that Eastern Europeans were no longer able to co-exist with German communities after what the Germans did all over Europe; and while morally horrendous he was correct; Poles, Czechs, Lithuanians etc every group actively helped expel the local Germans.
Crimes-The Holocaust, Lebensraum, killing millions of Slavs, starving Eastern Europe, arbitrary price tags of conquered for each German soldier killed, absolute control over all media academia and other forms of communication to keep a helpless home nation in it's thrall, indoctrinating a generation of Germans to believe in an ideology written by monsters, use of child soldiers armed with innovations that made them dangerous and forced Russian Soldiers to fire back, taking over the economy of a once free society to make the people dependent on the state, looting Europe for everything from it's eggs to it's best art, enslavement of conquered people; granting it's soldiers the right to rape women as a reward, arbitrary killings to intimidate nationalists and much much more.
The army with operations orders while certainly not good definitely less evil is the "good" army out of the two of those.
The German Army can't even be considered morale equals of the Soviet Army; how could it be equal to the Polish, or British or American etc armies?
"World War" is a movie about a bunch of goddamn racist ass white mother ers killing each other for no ing reason. Don't stop now, I'm making popcorn, I heard there were ing Samurais in the ing sequel. Samurais with goggles in fighter planes mother er. World War Two: Samurai Resurrection A movie about a bunch of goddamn racist ass white mother ers killing each other because the Samurais with fighter planes were all like " you whitey!" and blew up Hawaii. They should have gotten Tarantino and RZA on that .
Last edited by Col. Tartleton; February 28, 2013 at 09:20 PM.
Scots isn't a language.
You're just really bad at spelling.
Yes, there are good and bad sides in some wars, and even in the most screwed up and byzantine of bad wars some parts of the sides can rise above the norm though ethical and honorable behavior (the entire reason for the ideals of chivalry and bushido, to counteract the ugly reality).
But overall, let's be blunt her:
The Athenian invasion of Sicily: One of the few cases where pre-modern and modern morality and socio-politico-military thought are in agreement: an unjustified invasion for no higher goal and which accomplished nothing but misery.
Even if the American Civil War was not fought at first to free slaves, it was fought to prevent a group of entrenched oligarchs from nullifying the basic premise of American liberty- adherence to an election- by force of arms and terror. If that alone does not qualify, I do not know *what* does.
The Franco-Piedmontese war with the Habsburgs in 1859 was also *relatively* clearcut, given the fact that while the former were not angels and the latter did not contain any outright monsters, it was still an occupying force imposing the autocratic and frankly illegitimate whim of an absolute monarch on an alien population and which had committed atrocities against these communities on and off for centuries. There's something of a clear disparity here, at least.
WWI, when you really, really get down to it and especially after the South Balkans (outside Greece) and Russia were defeated and occupied basically came down to the absolute monarchies or semi-absolute and definitely authoritarian monarchies versus the few democracies and republics. On top of the fact that the origins for the outbreak do not paint the Serbs or Russians in the best of lights but make the Habsburgs out to be the worst of all, *and* the fact that the conduct between the Central Powers and their enemies was not even remotely close to being equivalent? And ya, I'd call that.
WWII.... is so obvious I do not even feel like mentioning it, and that's factoring in that the Good Guys happened to be alligned with some of the most notorious mass murders of the modern era (Mao miiight get off the hook since he hadn't really started racking up the bodies left and right, but Stalin and Chiang certainly don't and I would never ever bet on Mao).
The Korean War? Semi-banana republic and legitimately free foreign allies versus totalitarian dictatorships? Yeah, this is also pretty easy.
Greek Civil War? Not even that disputable.
Vietnam? Again, oppressive banana republic and allies against mass-murdering totalitarian and frankly genocidal governments/guerilla groups and allies. The former win by default even if they shouldn't.
Hungarian Revolution? Again, does anybody here really root for the Soviets in that?
The Suez War: Again, like it or not, Nasser was a lot worse than even the Israelis at this exceedingly rough point in their history were, and the assessment of him as another Mussolini with a more permanent tan was pretty accurate. No matter how one feels about the control of the Suez or imperialism, the guy had no standing under the law to do what he did.
I could go On. And On. And On. And On, And ONNN.....
Last edited by Tiberios; March 03, 2013 at 09:13 AM.