Is there such a thing as a just war?

teagar

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

Just a thought.

While it's all well and good talking about Hitler this and Stalin that, it takes more than just a chap whose in charge to make it happen! You need everyone else involved in the war to make it happen. If most people were opposed (even in a police state!) it probably wouldn't happen.

Let's have a bit of soft revisionism here. It's not just big men in rooms standing over maps. It's a big complex fabric, of which the big men are certainly a part, but by no means the only part!


In the case of why switch (or not), it's probably in part to do with the said nation's attitude to war, it's political and ideological make-up, it's process of gearing up for war, it's history of feelnigs towards other nations, the make up of the population, etc etc etc.

To take a hypothetical example, if Mussolini wanted to change sides, but the common Italian wasn't keen on donig so, there's not much il Duce could do about it.

It's never simple in history!!


And don't shoot me Johnfich, there's not a whif of post - anything here!

I still find it odd that in many of the posts, a war isn't considered a war untill Britain joins. There was most definitely a war going on before the UK decided to declare war on Germany (in aid of Poland), so the war already wasn't just. Had Germany and Italy not invaded most of Western and Eastern Europe, the war would not have existed. Thus WW2 is not a just war, in the sense that it shouldn't have been a war in the first place.

The UK entry into the war can be easily argued to be just, but the war itself cannot. The same goes for the other examples given.

Seems today in UK a lot of people are opposed or just confused by the war in Afghanistan. It is happening and the big top boys are ignoring all the little people, business as usual.

If getting out of Afganistan was a genuine vote swinger, which i don't believe it is, I'm sure parties would be pandering to that way of thinking. Take the US exit of Vietnam. The US only left Vietnam when it was a given that any party supporting it would lose an election.

Wars like the second world war require full national mobilisation, so it's a much bigger burden on an individual and in affects a significant proportion of the population directly. Wars such as the one going on in Afganistan do not. As such, I don't believe they are particularly comparable.

Or have I over-analysed your response?


Edit:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ssive-race

Only this week, in the case of Obama.

Note the paragraph:

We talk instead of "great men", who as Thomas Carlyle claimed, made history independent of the society and cultures that produced them. So tales of their moods, thought processes, psychological flaws and idiosyncratic genius become paramount. The emphasis shifts from policy to personality: their inability to trust, failure to lead or willingness to compromise become the questions of the day. The fate of the world lies not so much in their hands as in their gut and mind. Whether they take tablets or not sparks national conversation.

And so for all his individual talents, the fact that Obama is the product of a certain political moment and system, and therefore represents both its potential and its limits, is lost.

I'm not the only one saying it!

Anonymous

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

Just a thought.

While it's all well and good talking about Hitler this and Stalin that, it takes more than just a chap whose in charge to make it happen! You need everyone else involved in the war to make it happen. If most people were opposed (even in a police state!) it probably wouldn't happen.

Let's have a bit of soft revisionism here. It's not just big men in rooms standing over maps. It's a big complex fabric, of which the big men are certainly a part, but by no means the only part!


In the case of why switch (or not), it's probably in part to do with the said nation's attitude to war, it's political and ideological make-up, it's process of gearing up for war, it's history of feelnigs towards other nations, the make up of the population, etc etc etc.

To take a hypothetical example, if Mussolini wanted to change sides, but the common Italian wasn't keen on donig so, there's not much il Duce could do about it.

It's never simple in history!!


And don't shoot me Johnfich, there's not a whif of post - anything here!

I still find it odd that in many of the posts, a war isn't considered a war untill Britain joins. There was most definitely a war going on before the UK decided to declare war on Germany (in aid of Poland), so the war already wasn't just. Had Germany and Italy not invaded most of Western and Eastern Europe, the war would not have existed. Thus WW2 is not a just war, in the sense that it shouldn't have been a war in the first place.

The UK entry into the war can be easily argued to be just, but the war itself cannot. The same goes for the other examples given.

Seems today in UK a lot of people are opposed or just confused by the war in Afghanistan. It is happening and the big top boys are ignoring all the little people, business as usual.

If getting out of Afganistan was a genuine vote swinger, which i don't believe it is, I'm sure parties would be pandering to that way of thinking. Take the US exit of Vietnam. The US only left Vietnam when it was a given that any party supporting it would lose an election.

Wars like the second world war require full national mobilisation, so it's a much bigger burden on an individual and in affects a significant proportion of the population directly. Wars such as the one going on in Afganistan do not. As such, I don't believe they are particularly comparable.

Or have I over-analysed your response?


Edit:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ssive-race

Only this week, in the case of Obama.

Note the paragraph:

We talk instead of "great men", who as Thomas Carlyle claimed, made history independent of the society and cultures that produced them. So tales of their moods, thought processes, psychological flaws and idiosyncratic genius become paramount. The emphasis shifts from policy to personality: their inability to trust, failure to lead or willingness to compromise become the questions of the day. The fate of the world lies not so much in their hands as in their gut and mind. Whether they take tablets or not sparks national conversation.

And so for all his individual talents, the fact that Obama is the product of a certain political moment and system, and therefore represents both its potential and its limits, is lost.

I'm not the only one saying it!

You talk about it like a cryptic crossword puzzle. I served in the first Gulf war, NI, Bosnia twice and spent 5 months in Angola and what a shambles that was. It affects families, communities and public opinion much deeper than a critical and clever analysis could ever hope to reach. Nothing good happens in these places.

finchy

teagar wrote:

And don't shoot me Johnfich, there's not a whif of post - anything here!

Don't worry I've never shot anyone yet and I'm not going to start now.

Don't worry, I'm very interested in (certain periods of) history myself, so I understand what you're saying about history being about more than a collection of personalities.

teagar

dmclite wrote:

You talk about it like a cryptic crossword puzzle. I served in the first Gulf war, NI, Bosnia twice and spent 5 months in Angola and what a shambles that was. It affects families, communities and public opinion much deeper than a critical and clever analysis could ever hope to reach. Nothing good happens in these places.

What's your point?

MattC59

depends which side you're on.

nolf

dmclite wrote:

softlad wrote:

dmclite wrote:

Yeah, totally agree. Saddam and Mugabe, one had oil one hasn't, both dictators and not very nice.

if we're targeting people based on their human rights record, then there's always King Abdullah in Saudi......plenty of oil there....

Way too powerful, too many pockets lined there, too many world leaders on a nice little earner.

They do own 8/9% of the US economy according to a report published in 2005.
That may not sound like a lot but the US annual GDP is around 13 trillion dollars.

nolf

johnfinch wrote:

Not particularly strange - Russia and Italy both started off by opposing Nazi expansion, only switching sides when they realised what crap allies the British and French were.

But then I suspect you knew that and wanted to make another point when somebody picked up on it... go on then, the floor's all yours.

Thats not true, historian specialising in the period.

Mussolini and Hitler were personal friends, and indeed hitler modelled much of what he did on the ideas and actions of Mussolini who predated him. they both supported the fascist general Franco in Spain, and were staunch supporters of each other.

Russia and germany had been mutually supportive secretive allies for around 10 years by the time Hitler came to power in 1933. Germany weren't allowed tanks in their armed forces under the treay of versailles and so they used Russian training bases so as to disguise the fact.

The molotov-Ribbentrop act was the culmination of friendly trade agreements, and included in this was the plan for how the 2 countries were to split Poland once the war began. Although both sides recognised that they would be at war eventually, Stalin sought to prolong peace as long as possible. Indeed shipments of oil were still being sent to germany as the germans crossed the border into Russia.


I always liked this quote with regard to war
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill

finchy

nolf wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Not particularly strange - Russia and Italy both started off by opposing Nazi expansion, only switching sides when they realised what crap allies the British and French were.

But then I suspect you knew that and wanted to make another point when somebody picked up on it... go on then, the floor's all yours.

Thats not true, historian specialising in the period.

Mussolini and Hitler were personal friends, and indeed hitler modelled much of what he did on the ideas and actions of Mussolini who predated him. they both supported the fascist general Franco in Spain, and were staunch supporters of each other.

Then how do you explain Italy's foreign relations up until about 1935?

teagar

johnfinch wrote:

Not particularly strange - Russia and Italy both started off by opposing Nazi expansion, only switching sides when they realised what crap allies the British and French were.

But then I suspect you knew that and wanted to make another point when somebody picked up on it... go on then, the floor's all yours.

As far as I was aware, Italy had visions of grandure, an empire etc, which was something il Duce and the fascitis picked up on and ran with. I thought Mussolini himself was not particularly keen on Hitler first, though warmed through the mid '30s. I thought Italy was particularly uncomfortable with Austria becoming part of Germany, and figured that Italy's imperial ambitions, making it once more a "strong nation" and all that, meant that sitting in with Germany made more sense. Though it's a while since I looked at it I thought Italy was hoping and asking Germany to wait a year or two before embarking on their joint ventures.

I don't subcribe too much to the "they were friends" and that Mussolini provided anything more than superficial inspiration to Hitler himself.

Italy never had a strong national identity in the way Britain, France, and Germany experienced, largely due to the way in which it was unified in the late 1870's, hence the Fasciti's desparation to try and change it, with little genuine success.

It's a long time since I studied it though.

finchy

teagar wrote:

As far as I was aware, Italy had visions of grandure, an empire etc, which was something il Duce and the fascitis picked up on and ran with. I thought Mussolini himself was not particularly keen on Hitler first, though warmed through the mid '30s. I thought Italy was particularly uncomfortable with Austria becoming part of Germany.

Which is pretty much what I was referring to - Italy opposing German expansion into Austria in the mid-30s and the USSR declaring that it would be willing to fight on behalf of Czecholslovakia in 1938.

Anonymous

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

You talk about it like a cryptic crossword puzzle. I served in the first Gulf war, NI, Bosnia twice and spent 5 months in Angola and what a shambles that was. It affects families, communities and public opinion much deeper than a critical and clever analysis could ever hope to reach. Nothing good happens in these places.

What's your point?

You seem to have read a lot of books. Thats the point.

teagar

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

You talk about it like a cryptic crossword puzzle. I served in the first Gulf war, NI, Bosnia twice and spent 5 months in Angola and what a shambles that was. It affects families, communities and public opinion much deeper than a critical and clever analysis could ever hope to reach. Nothing good happens in these places.

What's your point?

You seem to have read a lot of books. Thats the point.

Given that I studied history at university, then yes, I've read a fair few books on historical matters, which I believe makes me quite well informed on matters of history. Given that the discussion is largely on historical examples, I feel I have some legitimate authority to discuss it! If we were talking physics I'm sure a physicist would be an authority.

I sense, though I may be wrong, that when you write that I have read a lot of books, (which you don't mention in your in quoted passage - talk about being cryptic!), you arn't being particularly positive about it. If so, why?

Are you implicitly suggesting that because I havn't experienced war I do not have a legitimate claim to what a just war is and isn't, and the way in which wars in popular discourse are discussed? Are you suggesting that your experience means your opinions trumps mine? Or do you just have a chip or two on your shoulder, which I bring out in you through my posts?

I guess I'm asking the questions since you're being cryptic yourself.

Anonymous

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

teagar wrote:

dmclite wrote:

You talk about it like a cryptic crossword puzzle. I served in the first Gulf war, NI, Bosnia twice and spent 5 months in Angola and what a shambles that was. It affects families, communities and public opinion much deeper than a critical and clever analysis could ever hope to reach. Nothing good happens in these places.

What's your point?

You seem to have read a lot of books. Thats the point.

Given that I studied history at university, then yes, I've read a fair few books on historical matters, which I believe makes me quite well informed on matters of history. Given that the discussion is largely on historical examples, I feel I have some legitimate authority to discuss it! If we were talking physics I'm sure a physicist would be an authority.

I sense, though I may be wrong, that when you write that I have read a lot of books, (which you don't mention in your in quoted passage - talk about being cryptic!), you arn't being particularly positive about it. If so, why?

Are you implicitly suggesting that because I havn't experienced war I do not have a legitimate claim to what a just war is and isn't, and the way in which wars in popular discourse are discussed? Are you suggesting that your experience means your opinions trumps mine? Or do you just have a chip or two on your shoulder, which I bring out in you through my posts?

I guess I'm asking the questions since you're being cryptic yourself.

I think you are right, I am being cryptic because I don't want to be seen as offensive or insulting. I do have a chip on my shoulder where students/graduates are concerned, part of being a soldiers make up and for such a long time. But....you are very intelligent and succinct with your views, knowledge, understanding and explanations, I'm in no way trying to patronise you mate, compliment you, yes.

I am guilty of generalisation where you are concerned and I apologise. You are right, I have felt that because I have been to war and other conflicts my view trumps any others, it does not. It does change your attitude though and you may have more insight than others. I got my degree in engineering through the OU whilst working fulltime and bringing up 3 kids and it was no fun (the degree), so I am jealous of the classic university experience, I think.

No more negativity from me to you, sorry fo jumping on you, what you have written so far makes so much sense. A just war would be one where starving people were saved from death by attacking their oppressors.

teagar

dmclite wrote:

You seem to have read a lot of books. Thats the point.

teagar wrote:

Given that I studied history at university, then yes, I've read a fair few books on historical matters, which I believe makes me quite well informed on matters of history. Given that the discussion is largely on historical examples, I feel I have some legitimate authority to discuss it! If we were talking physics I'm sure a physicist would be an authority.

I sense, though I may be wrong, that when you write that I have read a lot of books, (which you don't mention in your in quoted passage - talk about being cryptic!), you arn't being particularly positive about it. If so, why?

Are you implicitly suggesting that because I havn't experienced war I do not have a legitimate claim to what a just war is and isn't, and the way in which wars in popular discourse are discussed? Are you suggesting that your experience means your opinions trumps mine? Or do you just have a chip or two on your shoulder, which I bring out in you through my posts?

I guess I'm asking the questions since you're being cryptic yourself.

dmclite wrote:

I think you are right, I am being cryptic because I don't want to be seen as offensive or insulting. I do have a chip on my shoulder where students/graduates are concerned, part of being a soldiers make up and for such a long time. But....you are very intelligent and succinct with your views, knowledge, understanding and explanations, I'm in no way trying to patronise you mate, compliment you, yes.

I am guilty of generalisation where you are concerned and I apologise. You are right, I have felt that because I have been to war and other conflicts my view trumps any others, it does not. It does change your attitude though and you may have more insight than others. I got my degree in engineering through the OU whilst working fulltime and bringing up 3 kids and it was no fun (the degree), so I am jealous of the classic university experience, I think.

No more negativity from me to you, sorry fo jumping on you, what you have written so far makes so much sense. A just war would be one where starving people were saved from death by attacking their oppressors.

We can finally agree on something!

I don't for a minute believe reading or studying or whatever is either a) a substitute for the real thing or b) makes you ultimately superior to someone who hasn't (studied it). It gives you a perspective and overview which you can have sitting in an armchair, and lets you consider things on an abstract level (ideally at least), which, like everything, is a double edged sword and has its drawbacks.