When is war justified, part duex?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Either... if they come now and you are in the process of letting the Huns past, they will recognize that you are in cahoots and kill you along with the Huns.

If they come later, and you let the Huns past, they will recognize you were in cahoots and kill you.

This is assuming that the Romans are stronger. If you think the Huns will win, then you should ally with them and hope to make a better deal with them than with the Romans.

Jon Miller

This makes some sense. If you think the Huns will win the war, it is better to go with them now rather than later. If the contrary, you just might want to stick with the Romans as they will eventually win.

But still, you have the time element. The Roman army is not at hand. It might be advisable to stand down until they do arrive. In other words, let the Huns pass, but join the war if and when the Romans arrive.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Nope. To take it back to belgium that would be the germans going from town to town and demand unconditional surrender while still be at full war with the state belgium.

This actually happened. Some chose to fight and were destroyed.

Bad choice?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned


This actually happened. Some chose to fight and were destroyed.

Bad choice?

I wasn't aware that the germans did such in belgium.

[Ned]

Originally posted by BlackCat


I wasn't aware that the germans did such in belgium.

August 20, 1914

"At the Porte de Namur I found that the Garde Civique in Brussels had been ordered to disband and that the plan for the defence of the city had been completely abandoned. It was the wise thing to do, for there was no hope of defending the town with the small force of Gardes at the disposal of the military governor. It would have been quite futile and would have entailed a big loss of innocent civilian life. The governor wanted to do it purely as a matter of honour, but he would have paid for it heavily and could not have accomplished anything beyond delaying the Germans for an hour or two. The Garde Civique Avas furious, however, at the idea of not being able to make a stand. There was a demonstration, but the cooler heads prevailed, and the men withdrew to their homes. "

http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Belgium/Diary_01.htm

We also know that the people of Louvain resisted. In reprisal, the Germans slaughtered many civilians and systematically destroyed the town.

[BlackCat]

Well, it seems that the germans wasn't that civilized after all - first that start a war against a neutral country, next they murder civilians when they meet resistance against their attempt to conquer said country.

[Ned]

Actually, by comparison, the Germans were much more civilized during WWII than during WWI, but the average person would not know that, would they?

[Solly]

When some Arabs steal 15 of your men.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The answer is fight, obviously.

Either way, you're going to end up fighting -- either fighting the Huns, or fighting the Romans (who will have at you as soon as they've discovered that you've broken your agreement and facilitated an attack on the Empire).

You're weak and without friends, except Rome. Let the huns pass, and the Romans will come kick your ass. Fight the huns, and maybe the romans will come to your aid.

It's a realpolitik no-brainer.

[Provost Harrison]

Ned: Part doh!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

We also know that the people of Louvain resisted.

Sorry, the people of Louvain resisted ?

How do we know this ?

In reprisal, the Germans slaughtered many civilians and systematically destroyed the town.

Ah yes, the militarily significant library of Louvain.

There is little doubt that the German soldiers often fired because of the fear of francs-tireurs, but there is no convincing evidence that they were actually fired upon; indeed, no serious effort seems to have been made judicially to establish the fact.

Official Report by U.S. Ambassador to Belgium, Brand Whitlock, to the U.S. Secretary of State, September 12th 1917

" May I take a picture? "

His intent evidently escaped the German, who answered cordially:

"Certainly; go ahead. You will find some beautiful things over there on the corner in the house they are getting ready to burn."

http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Louvain/Louvain_Diary_01.htm

Priceless.


Still, it is significant that Ned can get his dander up over British propaganda and alleged acts of war at sea, but can't quite get the facts of Louvain straight.

Actually, by comparison, the Germans were much more civilized during WWII

'Civilized' ? 'CIVILIZED' !


That's an odd way to describe this:

During the summer of 1940, the SS rounded up members of the intelligentsia in the General Government. In this so-called A-B Aktion (Extraordinary Pacification Operation), several thousand university professors, teachers, priests, and others were shot. The mass murders occurred outside Warsaw, in the Kampinos forest near Palmiry, and inside the city at the Pawiak prison.

http://www.ushmm.org/education/resource/poles/poles.php

Or the actions of the Einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe, the medical experiments at Buchenwald or the death toll of the extermination camps.

Or deliberately allowing the citizens of Kharkov to starve to death, as part of the 'Hunger Plan'.

If anything, the years of relentless Nazi indoctrination and propaganda had done their job in instilling a feeling of indifference at best in even ordinary German soldiers.

The policies of the Nazis far exceeded anything that panic stricken or enraged German troops might have done of their own accord in France or Belgium in World War I, and these policies were systematic, from the government and clearly thought out BEFORE conflict started.


Dear me, you'll excuse absolutely anything the Nazis did, won't you ?

But of course if it's the British, Belgian, French, or if heaven forfend,

STALIN DID IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

then it's completely and utterly uncivilized and quite beyond the pale.


In my opinion, you have something of a denial complex, and need help.

Poetry and drama are seen as some of the marks of civilizations, or the civlized.

Here's what the Nazis did to poets and dramatists they weren't keen on :

"Prague, July 20. -- Details of the killing of the poet Erich Meuhsam in a German concentration camp were given tonight by his widow, who has just reached Prague from Germany.
"Herr Meuhsam went through a Calvary of Nazi concentration camps, passing through the three most notorious between February of last year and the slaying on July 10, last. He was in Brandenburg, Sonnenburg and the Oranienburg camps.
"His widow declared this evening that, when she was first allowed to visit her husband after his arrest, his face was so swollen by beating that she could not recognize him. He was assigned to the task of cleaning toilets and staircases and Stormtroopers amused themselves by spitting in his face, she added.
"On July 8, last, she saw him for the last time alive. Despite the tortures he had undergone for 15 months, she declared, he was cheerful, and she knew at once when his "suicide" was reported to her three days later that it was untrue. When she told the police that they had "murdered" him, she asserted they shrugged their shoulders and laughed. A post mortem examination was refused, according to Frau Meuhsam, but Storm Troopers, incensed with their new commanders, showed her the body, which bore unmistakable signs of strangulation, with the back of the skull shattered as if Herr Meuhsam had been dragged around the parade ground."

http://web.hamline.edu/personal/jgeorge/erich.html

As Hans Johst, Nazi playwright would say:

"Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meinen Browning."

[Ned]

"Apparently responding to criticisms that the sailors and marines surrendered too easily to the Iranians and were too eager to cooperate with their captors, they said that "fighting back was simply not an option".

"We were aware that many people have questioned why we allowed ourselves to be taken in the first place. From the outset it was very apparent that fighting back was not an option. Had we done that many of us would not be standing here today.

"There would have been a major fight, which we could not have won, and the consequences would have had a major strategic impact. We made a conscious decision not to engage the Iranians."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=447110&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

I must admit, I have changed my views on this after the full discussion in these "When war is justified" threads. I initially thought the Brits should have resisted. But I think they chose the wiser course.

It is amazing that current events provides a much better example of the Huns at the gate scenario and the decision-making that must me done in short order. To fight or to give up is not merely a matter of right or wrong, but of whether you can win if you choose to fight and even if you can win whether the cost of victory is so high as to overwhelm the immediate cause for "war."

[Sava]

Originally posted by Doddler
When some Arabs steal 15 of your men.

Iranians aren't Arab.

[Ned]

Neither are they Huns.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ned
"Apparently responding to criticisms that the sailors and marines surrendered too easily to the Iranians and were too eager to cooperate with their captors, they said that "fighting back was simply not an option".

"We were aware that many people have questioned why we allowed ourselves to be taken in the first place. From the outset it was very apparent that fighting back was not an option. Had we done that many of us would not be standing here today.

"There would have been a major fight, which we could not have won, and the consequences would have had a major strategic impact. We made a conscious decision not to engage the Iranians."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=447110&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

I must admit, I have changed my views on this after the full discussion in these "When war is justified" threads. I initially thought the Brits should have resisted. But I think they chose the wiser course.

It is amazing that current events provides a much better example of the Huns at the gate scenario and the decision-making that must me done in short order. To fight or to give up is not merely a matter of right or wrong, but of whether you can win if you choose to fight and even if you can win whether the cost of victory is so high as to overwhelm the immediate cause for "war."

Ned, this does in no way compare to The Belgians situation - comparing a light armed small group with a whole countrys military capability is insane.

[Ned]

The only major difference is that the immediacy of the threat and the liklihood that the commander making the decisions is also going to get killed, which was not the case when Albert was calling the shots for his people.

I early quoted (I don't remember if it was this thread or another) the official of Brussels who decided that fighting for the city would be a fruitless act that would delay the Germans by only a few hours and get a lot of citizens killed. This is the very same decision that Albert had to make but on a much smaller scale.

I simply do not understand your reasoning to say the situations are not analogous.