When is war justified?

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither
So's FDR and the Yanks, according to you.

Heck, if you work at it long enough you could blame Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Hindus in general for good measure.

What meaning has this 'blame' word you speak of?

Germany was blamed for WWI because it gave a blank check to Austria.

FDR did as much to Britain.

The onus is on those who sought war and avoided peace.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Arrian


Despite not being Ned, I'll answer that:

Roughly zero. Maybe a negative number.

-Arrian

What about Lend Lease? That brought us into conflict with Germany and made the DOW by Germany inevitable.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
To go to war to interfer with the internal affairs of another county is a violation of the Treaty of Westphalia, which has been the cornerstone of international relations since it ended the 30 Years War.

So I suppose that you'd be against intervening into a civil war that didn't concern us on another continent.

[Arrian]

Much fuzzier. That allowed all sorts of wiggle room for politicos to tell their constituents they had preserved our neutrality and refused to be warmongering interventionists... while setting things in motion that had to be done (in their estimation).

That's different than ratifying a treaty that states, in no uncertain terms, that if X happens, we go to war.

Granted, I wasn't born for three decades after the end of WWII, so I can't really say if that was the attitude of the senate (or rather the senators who approved lend lease) at the time. It seems plausible, however.

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned
Germany was blamed for WWI because it gave a blank check to Austria.

Hey, let's give a little credit to AH for launching an invasion into Serbia just because some Serbian phycho assassinated the heir to the throne.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Iraq went to war with Kuwait. Kuwait invoked its right to self defense, and the US responded. No formal guarantee was needed, only the Kuwaiti request.

.....

Is this universally true? One is always justified in coming to the aid of one party to a war where that party claims their existence is at stake?

In other words, a British intervention on behalf of the South would have been justified.

Further, in LoTM's views, it appears he would have also approved a Brit conquest of America even if the South was lost, that war was over, except for their government in exile in Britain who continued to plead for British help?

The consequences of this LoTM's theory are very interesting and have a lot to do with explaining British actions over the years and how they ended up with an empire.

It also helps explain a lot of what Caesar did in Gaul. He intervenes in a local dispute, conquers and keeps the conquered party for Rome.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Hey, let's give a little credit to AH for launching an invasion into Serbia just because some Serbian phycho assassinated the heir to the throne.

Z, and the South fired on Ft. Sumpter because it was reinforced by Lincoln.

But let's pause for a moment and assume the facts as they are. Serbia assassinates the Austrian heir. Austria declares war.

Is this war justified?

[Arrian]

Serbia did not assassinate Ferdinand. A Serbian "freedom fighter" did.

Serbia, IIRC, attemped to placate Austria.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Is this universally true? One is always justified in coming to the aid of one party to a war where that party claims their existence is at stake?

In other words, a British intervention on behalf of the South would have been justified.

Further, in LoTM's views, it appears he would have also approved a Brit conquest of America even if the South was lost, that war was over, except for their government in exile in Britain who continued to plead for British help?

The consequences of this LoTM's theory are very interesting and have a lot to do with explaining British actions over the years and how they ended up with an empire.

It also helps explain a lot of what Caesar did in Gaul. He intervenes in a local dispute, conquers and keeps the conquered party for Rome.

1. Ned implies that Kuwait only "claimed" that its existence was at stake. Seeing as Iraq not only occupied all of Kuwait, but had actually declared it a province of Iraq, this is very odd. It might explain Neds views of the German occupation of Poland, though.

2. The Confed States of America had not been recognized as an independent state prior to the war. US was thus not invading soveriegn territory of any country other than itself. Kuwait was a member of the UN, had diplomactic relations with most of the world, even with Iraq, IIRC.

[Arrian]

The situation, it appears, is somewhat analogous to Hezbollah assassinating an Israeli leader.

From Wiki:

The conspiracy involved Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb student. Gavrilo Princip was part of a group of fifteen assailants, who formed the Young Bosnia group, acting with support from the Black Hand, some members of which were part of the Serbian government.

The wiki article goes on to assert that the Serbs, knowing Russia had their back, deliberately equivocated in their response to Austria's original angry demands, knowing that Austria would declare war and being ok with that. Hmm.

So, if Hezbollah guns down Olmert, is Israel justified in attacking Lebanon?

Well, I think it does depend on the Lebanese government's response. If they hunt down the perpetrators and turn them over to Israel, and also promise to disarm Hez, well, I'd say no. If the Lebanese remain unable or unwilling to challenge Hez, however, then yes. As was the case with the recent war (I supported Israel's right to respond to an act of war).

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Serbia did not assassinate Ferdinand. A Serbian "freedom fighter" did.

Serbia, IIRC, attemped to placate Austria.

-Arrian

a Serbian freedom fighter who was armed and trained by an organization headed by the individual who also headed Serbian Military Intelligence. Whether anyone higher up knew, has never been proven one way or the other, IIUC.

But how is that in Ned threads we always jump through about a dozen different wars?

[Arrian]

I brought in another war

I did not, as it turns out, recall correctly (or was taught without nuance in highschool, which is more likely, I'd bet).

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
The situation, it appears, is somewhat analogous to Hezbollah assassinating an Israeli leader.

From Wiki:



The wiki article goes on to assert that the Serbs, knowing Russia had their back, deliberately equivocated in their response to Austria's original angry demands, knowing that Austria would declare war and being ok with that. Hmm.

So, if Hezbollah guns down Olmert, is Israel justified in attacking Lebanon?

Well, I think it does depend on the Lebanese government's response. If they hunt down the perpetrators and turn them over to Israel, and also promise to disarm Hez, well, I'd say no. If the Lebanese remain unable or unwilling to challenge Hez, however, then yes. As was the case with the recent war (I supported Israel's right to respond to an act of war).

-Arrian

No, cause it wasnt an opposition political party. The operation to kill Franz Ferd was directly organized by the head of Serbian Mililitary Intell.

Note, that John Keegan, a columnist for the Daily Telegraph, not at all unsympathetic to the Brit position, says in his book on the First World War, that if AH had made their demands, including the one Serbia ended up rejecting, IMMEDIATELY after the assasination, Europe would probably have accepted the ultimatum. However they dithered, until Russia had gone to far in reassuring Serbia to pull back. Note, the Serb govt included men who had murdered the previous Serb royal family in a coup, in a manner that would befit Al Qaeeda. It was not well liked, apparently. So to Keegan, its not so much AHs unreasonableness (after all there wasnt much precedent at the time) as AH's incompetence. And AH was hardly the only state to blame, in that regard.

[Arrian]

Somewhat analogous. Somewhat. Not perfectly so... as you've noted.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


The consequences of this LoTM's theory are very interesting and have a lot to do with explaining British actions over the years and how they ended up with an empire.

I'm responsible for the growth of the British Empire? Well damn, and they never even paid me a commision. I always knew I was very historically important though. (bet MB and KH and CH and a whole bunch of folks are just seething with envy)

Next, how our own Guevera masterminded the October Revolution, from the comfort of Fort Lauderdale.