When is war justified?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian
Somewhat analogous. Somewhat. Not perfectly so... as you've noted.

-Arrian

actually the closer analog is to what MAY have been behind the Harirri assasination. Though in this instance the international community will likely be satisfied with far less out of Syria than the Austrian terms. Of course Syria is rather larger than Lebanon, the power position isnt analagous.

Another analogy would be if the govt of Iraq had tried to assasinate George H W Bush. I suppose its best not to discuss that.

[Arrian]

Another analogy would be if the govt of Iraq had tried to assasinate George H W Bush. I suppose its best not to discuss that.

Heh. Actually, I know next to nothing about that. I've heard it asserted a number of times, but never really saw a discussion of the evidence.

Plus, they failed. The Serbian group that whacked Ferdinand was after him for a while, and made at least one serious attempt that failed before they got him. That didn't result in a DoW...


edit: as for Syria, I get the sense that people were a lot more sure of the connection between Ferdinand's assassin and the Serbian government than they are now of the connection between Hariri's assassin and the Syrian government. Or it may simply be that the standard of proof required is now higher... I don't know.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


Heh. Actually, I know next to nothing about that. I've heard it asserted a number of times, but never really saw a discussion of the evidence.

Plus, they failed. The Serbian group that whacked Ferdinand was after him for a while, and made at least one serious attempt that failed before they got him. That didn't result in a DoW...

-Arrian

Well i guess part of the diff is that when the Austrians caught Princip (the same day as the assasination) he spilled the beans on his sponsors. Slam dunk, one might say.

[Arrian]

Yeah, well there you have it then.

Slam dunk, one might say.

You know, I don't think I'll ever really look at that phrase the same way...

-Arrian

[Ned]

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

Serbia, IIRC, attemped to placate Austria.

-Arrian

The allied view of course.

The Austrians "knew" the Black Hand was associated with the Serbian government and demanded Austrian participation in an investigation.

But, the propaganda view simply maintains that the Black Hand was an independent organization and that Austrian demands to participate in an investigation were unreasonable and therefor the DOW was unjustified. If the DOW was justified, then the whole "war guilt" clause of Versailles was unjustified and the allies could not bilk Germany billions in reparations.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


The allied view of course.

The Austrians "knew" the Black Hand was associated with the Serbian government and demanded Austrian participation in an investigation.

But, the propaganda view simply maintains that the Black Hand was an independent organization and that Austrian demands to participate in an investigation were unreasonable and therefor the DOW was unjustified. If the DOW was justified, then the whole "war guilt" clause of Versailles was unjustified and the allies could not bilk Germany billions in reparations.

duh. The Germans bilked France of reparations in 1871 for no better reasons. The French werent going to buy that all of a sudden "loser pays" was no good just cause they were the winner.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


I see. "Goal of conquering Europe."

That was in all the American propaganda films and literature at time. Makes it true, of course.

WTF?! Why did he attack the USSR if he didn't plan to conquer all of Europe?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Kidicious


WTF?! Why did he attack the USSR if he didn't plan to conquer all of Europe?

Lebensraum. IIRC, he spoke of the German's need for the Ukraine in Mein Kamph.

[Ned]

LoTM, Let's talk more about your view that it is OK to come to the aid of a party that asks for help in a war it is losing or has lost.

You except the South because it was not a recognized state.

I assume therefor that the US was unjustified in supporting the Republic of South Vietnam for the same reason.

Ditto, Bosnia and Kosovo.

Ditto, South Korea.

Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Lebensraum. IIRC, he spoke of the German's need for the Ukraine in Mein Kamph.

Well were does Ned think they weren't going to invade?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


WTF?! Why did he attack the USSR if he didn't plan to conquer all of Europe?

He thought the English had allied with Stalin and that Stalin planned to attack him. The Military Channel just ran a piece on this with this explanation.

Also, at the time, Stalin was mobilizing (and had been for some time) and did have millions of Soviet troops on the border. It is unclear why they were there, but Hitler did believe that the USSR was planning to attack.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


He thought the English had allied with Stalin and that Stalin planned to attack him. The Military Channel just ran a piece on this with this explanation.

Also, at the time, Stalin was mobilizing (and had been for some time) and did have millions of Soviet troops on the border. It is unclear why they were there, but Hitler did believe that the USSR was planning to attack.

I can't even believe that Hitler would be that stupid.

[Ned]

Kid, why don't you viist the thread in the History forum for a fuller explanation, but Hitler's belief was not entirely a fantasy. He had good reason to believe that England had made a breakthrough with Stalin.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
LoTM, Let's talk more about your view that it is OK to come to the aid of a party that asks for help in a war it is losing or has lost.

You except the South because it was not a recognized state.

I assume therefor that the US was unjustified in supporting the Republic of South Vietnam for the same reason.

Ditto, Bosnia and Kosovo.

Ditto, South Korea.

Ditto. Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.

Those are all disputed cases. Rep of South Viet Nam most especially, theres a huge literature on it. It most certainly was not an example of secession, like the CSA, but then it was not a UN member, OTOH it was recognized by countries other than the US, and had been de facto independent for several years before being attacked. The controversy gets to the provisions of the 1954 treaty (of Paris?) which settled the first IndoChina war.

Bosnia is a bitterly contested case. Theres considerable international law discussion on that, IIRC. Note however, the US did NOT intervene in Bosnia at the begining of the FRY sponsored campaign against Bosnia, but only later, after the Srebenica massacre. Ditto, we went into Kosovo only after ethnic cleansing began.

Korea is also contested, IIUC.

Whats your point exactly?

You seem to be saying that Im hypocritical for saying it was right to defend Kuwait, unless I think it would have been right to intervene on behalf of the CSA. And that Im hypocritical to question the right to intervene for the CSA, unless I condemn various US interventions.

In any case, will you please cease from making this about me?

[Pekka]

In general all defensive wars are justified, but this should be limited inside your own borders. When an aggressor comes across your borders, a war is just.

Other wars, well, I don't think a single rule applies very well. I think what matters is the context, the overall context. After all, all wars are 'defensive'. So... you have to look at the context.