A Good War

[MrFun]

There really are three wars that without question, I believe to have been justified:

American Revolutionary War

American Civil War

World War II



EDIT: I suppose I will include the Korean War way at the bottom of this short list.

[Ted Striker]

Mister Fun,

Not Korea?

[DerSchwarzfalke]

War is a great contradiction. There are moral wars to be fought because there is immorality everywhere that spreads its immorality with violence. However, there is no such thing as a moral way to fight a war. Every war involves organized killing, all of it painful in millions of ways, much of it more atrocious than "accepted standards." All war is crime. Like crime, the best we can do is limit it, ameliorate its effects, allow some generations to live as much as possible a life free of war.

[Hueij]

Yes, I could see that starting a draft was necessary, but what result did the firebombing of Dresden have? I couldn't imagine that it actually resulted in something that changed the outcome of the war.

No, but without the firebombing Kurt Vonnegut wouldn't have written Slaughterhouse Five.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Mister Fun,

Not Korea?

hmmm . . . . . . .



I guess I will have to chalk the Korean War below my other choices.


Damn you for catching me on that.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The point is, explain what a "good cause" is, because other than self defense, I can't necessarily think of one.

Against tyranny, oppression, etc...

[DerSchwarzfalke]

And without Slaughterhouse Five, we would never have become morally indignant about the firebombing. It all becomes circular.

I love Slaughterhouse Five and Vonnegut, but I think even Vonnegut would agree that the world would be a better place without the events that formed the core of Slaughterhouse ever having had to occur.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DerSchwarzfalke
War is a great contradiction. There are moral wars to be fought because there is immorality everywhere that spreads its immorality with violence. However, there is no such thing as a moral way to fight a war. Every war involves organized killing, all of it painful in millions of ways, much of it more atrocious than "accepted standards." All war is crime. Like crime, the best we can do is limit it, ameliorate its effects, allow some generations to live as much as possible a life free of war.

Quit being such a puss.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Sometimes you have to be the aggresor to defend yourself. There's nothing wrong with fighting for a good cause.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Stopping a holocaust isn't a good cause?

besides the fact that stopping the holocaust was not the primary objective, it was of course a very good consequence of ending ww2

i mean, the facilities at auswitch were never destroyed, even when they were in reach of allied bomber command.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by DerSchwarzfalke
And without Slaughterhouse Five, we would never have become morally indignant about the firebombing. It all becomes circular.

I love Slaughterhouse Five and Vonnegut, but I think even Vonnegut would agree that the world would be a better place without the events that formed the core of Slaughterhouse ever having had to occur.

Not necessarily true.

There were opponents of firebombing or mass area bombing in WWII on the Allied side, even in the British Parliament.


Having seen a recent interview with Kurt Vonnegut on BBC 2's 'The Culture Show' it was interesting to note that he referred to figures of casualties concocted by Goebbels and 'enhanced' by right-wing apologist David Irving.

I recommend that instead of relying on Vonnegut's memories of his personal experience for a reliable guide to how many were killed, people read :

'Telling Lies About Hitler' by Richard J Evans, which has a fascinating chapter on Irving's (and the Nazis' and later the East Germans') fabrication of the death toll figures.

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/3921B0DE291FD7A2CA256C0E0017C1A6

This isn't denying the validity of Vonnegut's experience, but as we've seen so often in the past, personal trauma clouds or colours factual accounts. No-one would rely on the memoirs of a London Blitz survivor to get an accurate account of how many died.

The legality aspect:

" In examining these events [aerial area bombardment] in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombardment#International_law_in_1945

Dresden was also a legitimate military target:

" The second part is in reference to whether Dresden was an militarily significant industrial centre. An official 1942 guide described the German city as "one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich" and in 1944, the German Army High Command's Weapons Office listed 127 medium-to-large factories and workshops which supplied the army with materiel.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey listed at least 110 factories and industries in Dresden. The city contained the Zeiss-Ikon optical factory and the Siemens glass factory, both of which, according to the Allies, were entirely devoted to manufacturing military gunsights. The immediate suburbs contained factories building radar and electronics components, and fuses for anti-aircraft shells. Other factories produced gas masks, engines for Junkers aircraft and cockpit parts for Messerschmitt fighters.

Because of this concentration of industry, made even more important by the relatively undamaged nature of Dresden at the time of the raids, the allied planners had reason to believe that Dresden was a crucial prop in the German effort to maintain supply for the defense of Germany itself. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#endnote_TheLawofAirWarfare

When faced with the prospect of combatting a regime which terrorized its own citizens and resorted without question to bombing of targets such as Rotterdam and Warsaw (and practiced for it at Guernica), the British did at first rely on leaflet drops.

However, when the question becomes ' will you bomb German cities or have your own islands reduced to rubble and your population killed ?', bombs will win over leaflets.


I'd also recommend this interview with Frederick Taylor from 'Der Spiegel' :

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,341239,00.html

Taylor is author of:

'Dresden: Tuesday, Feb. 13, 1945' publ. HarperCollins, 2004.

[curtsibling]

A war being justified depends on the viewpoints of those who choose to get involved.

A victor of a war is hardly going to announce to all those
bereaved families that the conflict was a waste of time, eh?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by dannubis


besides the fact that stopping the holocaust was not the primary objective, it was of course a very good consequence of ending ww2

i mean, the facilities at auswitch were never destroyed, even when they were in reach of allied bomber command.

Damn! And I thought it was standard policy to bomb prison compounds.

[Last Conformist]

Re: A Good War

Originally posted by David Floyd

I would say that the only war that could be considered good and moral is a war of absolute self defense

As anyone who's played civ will know, turning a war of self-defense to an offensive into the attacker's land can lower long-term death tolls. What's your position on that?

[DeathByTheSword]

good war: 80 year war of dutch indepence...any indepence war in a country i now respect...