When is war justified?

[Ned]

LoTM, I merely suggest that the exception you made for the South was not well founded. There are many examples of parties that are fighting for their independence where interventions have occurred, including France in case of our own revolution. So your exception concerning the South cannot be a general rule.

The real question is whether the party intervening can not only fight to achieve the survival and independence of the party they seek to help, but to destroy and occupy the other party even if it offers peace.

If the Brits had intervened on behalf of the South, occuppied the North and made it a part of its empire, I suggest to you that that would be wrong.

Saddam was willing to enter a ceasefire after his troops had been evicted from Kuwait. Had Bush continued to Baghdad, that would have been a war of aggression.

There was debate about going North of the 38th Parallel in 1950. We did, and the Chinese intervened claiming our war had transformed from a defensive struggle into a war of aggression.

Had we not just defended Bosnia or Kosovo, but destroyed and occuppied Serbia, that would have been a war of aggression as well.

But, in October 1939, the Brits declare it their intention to destroy the Nazi regime in response to a peace offer, and this is not aggression [even if it were somewhat justified by prior German betrayals]?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
LoTM, I merely suggest that the exception you made for the South was not well founded. There are many examples of parties that are fighting for their independence where interventions have occurred, including France in case of our own revolution. So your exception concerning the South cannot be a general rule.

The real question is whether the party intervening can not only fight to achieve the survival and independence of the party they seek to help, but to destroy and occupy the other party even if it offers peace.

If the Brits had intervened on behalf of the South, occuppied the North and made it a part of its empire, I suggest to you that that would be wrong.

Saddam was willing to enter a ceasefire after his troops had been evicted from Kuwait. Had Bush continued to Baghdad, that would have been a war of aggression.

There was debate about going North of the 38th Parallel in 1950. We did, and the Chinese intervened claiming our war had transformed from a defensive struggle into a war of aggression.

Had we not just defended Bosnia or Kosovo, but destroyed and occuppied Serbia, that would have been a war of aggression as well.

But, in October 1939, the Brits declare it their intention to destroy the Nazi regime in response to a peace offer, and this is not aggression [even if it were somewhat justified by prior German betrayals]?

The question of when its licit to intervene in a civil war is also disputed. The general rule is that the there has to be real defacto independence. Thats why Saratoga was important in the am rev, and in the opposite direction Antietam in the Am Civil War.

However a country that is fighting a civil war against secessionists, even if it reaches the point where the secessionists are strong enough to warrant foreign recognition, is still not engaging in the kind of behavior that would threaten regional or world order.


Iraq, by its invasion and annexation, not of a secedded state or province, but of a sovereign nation, a UN Member, de jure independent for decades and de facto independent for centuries, showed that it was a danger to regional peace and stability. A fortiori by its development (quite real at THAT time) of WMDs, by its atrocities against its own people, by its unprovoked missile attacks on Israel, etc.


Similarly, Germany, by its invasion and annexation of Poland, not a seceded state or province, but a League member, independent since 1918, its prior invasion and Annexation of Czechoslovakia, its invasion of Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands, its rhetoric about wider conquest, AND its internal policies, showed it was a threat to peace and stability.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
But, in October 1939, the Brits declare it their intention to destroy the Nazi regime in response to a peace offer, and this is not aggression [even if it were somewhat justified by prior German betrayals]?

CIte please. The atlantic charter was NOT in oct 39, but in August 1941.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


CIte please. The atlantic charter was NOT in oct 39, but in August 1941.

I can't find the text of Chamberlain's reply to the Hitler offer. The date of the reply is Oct. 12, 1939. But I believe a fair reading of the reply is that Britain will not attend a peace conference with the current German government in power.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher
I thought Ned was dead?

Nope; Ned is alive and well.

[Kidlicious]

Ned

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Arrian


Despite not being Ned, I'll answer that:

Roughly zero. Maybe a negative number.

-Arrian

I'd like to hear Ned address this.

He seems curiously unwilling or unable to back up the **** he pulls out of his ass.

[Keygen]

War is only justified when you're the defender

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I'd like to hear Ned address this.

He seems curiously unwilling or unable to back up the **** he pulls out of his ass.

That's a joke.

The question is not whether the US would be obligated to go to war, but would have a defensive alliance ala NATO with the treaty partners. Since we did set up NATO only a few years later, I cannot understand why we couldn't have done the same in 1939 if that would have prevented a war.

The Senate was all for anything that was designed to prevent war, but not so much in favor of unjust treaties that fostered new wars.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Keygen
War is only justified when you're the defender

Nice. But too simple.

Let's look at WWI.

Serbia killed the Austrian heir. Austria demanded satisfaction and did not get it. Austria declared war. Serbia was on the defensive.

I would argue that Austria's war was just and that joining Serbia was joining with the party at fault.

Which means that Serbia's allies, Russia and France were in the wrong they all went to war against the wronged party in support of the party at fault.

The case of Belgium is more complicated, to be sure. But, Britain didn't join the war just to protect Belgium. It joined the general war against Austria, so Britain is at fault to that extent. (Britain used Belgium as a pretext to join the larger war against Austria and the Ottoman Empire.)

We later attacked Germany and Austria. We joined the wrong side.

Now all this is reversed if Austia was not justified in its war against Serbia. Which is why the history books for most part write that Serbia's response to the Austrian ultimatum was enough and that Austria's war was unjust. But, again, the truth is more complicated than that.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


That's a joke.

The question is not whether the US would be obligated to go to war, but would have a defensive alliance ala NATO with the treaty partners. Since we did set up NATO only a few years later, I cannot understand why we couldn't have done the same in 1939 if that would have prevented a war.

The Senate was all for anything that was designed to prevent war, but not so much in favor of unjust treaties that fostered new wars.

I think the joke is suggesting that the Senate of an isolationist nation would agree to anything remotely resembling NATO.

Is it possible American views and public opinion underwent significant changes between 1941 and 1949, Ned?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


Nice. But too simple.

Let's look at WWI.

Serbia killed the Austrian heir. Austria demanded satisfaction and did not get it. Austria declared war. Serbia was on the defensive.

I would argue that Austria's war was just and that joining Serbia was joining with the party at fault.

Which means that Serbia's allies, Russia and France were in the wrong they all went to war against the wronged party in support of the party at fault.

The case of Belgium is more complicated, to be sure. But, Britain didn't join the war just to protect Belgium. It joined the general war against Austria, so Britain is at fault to that extent. (Britain used Belgium as a pretext to join the larger war against Austria and the Ottoman Empire.)

We later attacked Germany and Austria. We joined the wrong side.

Now all this is reversed if Austia was not justified in its war against Serbia. Which is why the history books for most part write that Serbia's response to the Austrian ultimatum was enough and that Austria's war was unjust. But, again, the truth is more complicated than that.

Using your own standard...

is the life of an arch duke worth the lives of millions? You say an entire country was not (Poland). What quality does this one person have that an entire nation lacks?

And what of Germany? She attacked Belguim and France on what legitimate grounds?

Ned, I like to have you around, but I can see why your tortured reasonings, oft repeated, drive a few people to be less than kind.

[Ned]

Early in this thread I referenced Caesar. I was quite impressed when I read his description of his conquest of Gual and the subsequent civil war how he justified every action he took. But look what he did. He would join a dispute between two parties, conquer one of them, and keep it for Rome.

Rome took over Judea in this way. They were invited in by one of two disputants and never left.

Japan justified every action it took in trying to conquer China. In each small case, they were attacked first. But their reaction was not to just deal with the attack, but to overreact and go to war on a general scale for the purpose of conquest.

My example of the US civil war is apt. To some degree, the South was attacked by the North, even though the South began shooting first. I am sure the South's war aims were to be free and not to conquer the North. But, if the Brits intervened and proceeded to conquer the North and then annexed it to their empire, you can quickly see my point about how a just pretext can be used to conquer unjustly.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Using your own standard...

is the life of an arch duke worth the lives of millions? You say an entire country was not (Poland). What quality does this one person have that an entire nation lacks?

And what of Germany? She attacked Belguim and France on what legitimate grounds?

Ned, I like to have you around, but I can see why your tortured reasonings, oft repeated, drive a few people to be less than kind.

Nice to have you a little calmer today.

No, I agree that wars should be avoided so long as diplomacy has a chance. The world (other than Germany) in 1914 should have united behind the Austrian demand for justice, and not rallied to the Serbian defiance. I think others, like Russia, really wanted war and were using the dispute for the very purpose of launching a war.

Germany has often been accused of being the warmonger in 1914. But if you see just how hard the Kaiser worked for peace, particularly with the Russians, I am not sure history got this one right.

[notyoueither]

Austria made the decision for war based on 1 life. That decision cost the lives of millions.

By your own reasoning regarding Britain in late 1939- early 1940, Austria and her blank cheque issuing allies are at fault.

The US joined the right side.