navwin » Discussion » The Alley » a moral requirement to go to war
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic a moral requirement to go to war Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan

0 posted 2005-06-25 02:36 PM


Assume for a moment that you have a country
that is governed by the worst dictatorship imaginable,
(in “The Washing of the Spears”, Donald Morris relates how
Shaka would walk through his world and with a flick
of his hand or nod of his head have someone at random
killed).  By remaining in such a country, is a person
consenting to his victimization and thereby absolves
anyone knowing of his or her situation on the outside from
taking any serious, (ie military), action to bring
an end to it.

Take the situation in 1941, and allow for a moment that
President Roosevelt and others within the administration
like him, knowing what Hitler was doing to Jews, Slavs,
and other “undesirables” and yet knowing none of it
posed any immediate or long term threat to the United
States never the less engineered events to provoke
a situation that would bring war with the Nazis of Germany.
Would he be, (some would ask “was he”), morally
right to do so.

When, if ever, is there a moral requirement to go to war
apart from in response to actual, or clearly imminent attack,
(as an aside, even then, according to John Toland and others,
it is a matter of historical fact that Roosevelt knew that
Japan was moving to war with the United States in
response to his administration’s actions but that he
wanted Japan to fire the first shot to assure political
and popular support; no one expected it to be at Pearl Harbor) ?

I have trouble personally with: “yes we know he is a monster
who did, (and/or does),  terrible things to his people and others but . . .” position
and what that then says about humanity.



© Copyright 2005 John Pawlik - All Rights Reserved
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
1 posted 2005-06-25 03:19 PM


"Moral requirement" is an oxymoron.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
2 posted 2005-06-25 03:23 PM


"'Moral requirement' is an oxymoron."

Absolutely agree.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
3 posted 2005-06-25 03:34 PM


Anyway, to add to that, the bottom line is, yes, there are cruel, harmful individuals in the world who sit in the positions of power and influence cultures, often for the very worse.

Your argument is flawed however. According to your argument, you say if someone as much as "thinks" that someone is bad or unjust that it should be an instant jurisdiction or only fair that person serves and goes to remove the individual's regime.

So, isn't it fair then, unless this current administration actually supports Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan and other brutal dictatorships across the world, that if they think they're bad too that they should sign up themselves and go fight their regimes?

Isn't it fair to argue that during the era of Vietnam, when many in our administration who themselves dodged the draft, including Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Rove, Gingrich and Perle, regardless of what they believed then, should serve themselves now if they strongly believe in the war in Iraq?

I see your argument, but you've got to consider the whole here.

Besides that, I happen to believe it is not unpatriotic not to serve your country through the military. I believe in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and I will proudly serve my country, America, the beautiful, as a son, brother, friend, poet, student, musician, newscaster, activist and patriot.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
4 posted 2005-06-25 03:52 PM


quote:

Take the situation in 1941, and allow for a moment that
President Roosevelt and others within the administration
like him, knowing what Hitler was doing to Jews



It wasn't known.  What was going on inside the concentration camps was shockingly revealed at the end of the war.

The impetus to enter the war was to keep Germany, Japan, (and formerly) the Soviet Union from hegemony covering a continuous pan-Europe,Asian empire.  If Hitler hadn't turned on Stalin it might have happened.

What was moral about the way Roosevelt DID enter the war?  He campaigned for re-election assuring America's mothers and fathers that their sons weren't going to die on foreign soil in a foreign war -- something the conservatives were dead set against -- then.. after the election it was 'leaked' to the press that the adminstration was making secret plans all along to invade Germany with England.

Upon reading this -- HITLER declared war on the U.S. thus prompting the Republican Congress to finally give the go ahead to send the boys over.

The ends may justify the means -- and it's perfectly possible to frame a guilty man.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
5 posted 2005-06-25 06:12 PM


Morals make peace and life, not violence and death.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

6 posted 2005-06-25 10:39 PM


Ess? What if crackheads are climbing through your window?

Do you have a moral responsibility to allow that, or a moral responsibility to protect yourself and your children?

(and nod, I deliberately narrowed it down to a personal issue because it HAS become personal to many)


Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
7 posted 2005-06-25 11:01 PM


Well, given that personal scenario, if you have to think about morals, it's already too late.  Act first, fret about morality after.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
8 posted 2005-06-26 12:50 PM


quote:
Act first, fret about morality after.

In which case, Ali, there can be no morality.

An, no, Karen, there is no moral responsibility to protect yourself. That's a purely selfish decision, not a moral one, and it's a decision many in history have refused to make. Often on what they felt were moral grounds. There is arguably a responsibility to protect your children, but that's nonetheless an assumed responsibility, not a moral one.

Morality has to be a choice, else it is no longer morality. It's just one person trying to control another.

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
9 posted 2005-06-26 01:05 AM


Absolutely correct, Ron.  That remark of mine, in context, did pertain to Serenity's scenario.  If some crazed person is breaking into your home and you have to think about whether any active response is right or wrong, the damage could already be done.

I really don't think there's ever been true moral reasons for war.  Revenge and power have always been the most popular choices.  Some other ones have been honor and pride.  Take WWI and the Alliance system.  If an ally was attacked, other allies were obligated to attack the transgressor.  It was a matter of honor, since going back on those promises would have been dishonorable.  Same with WWII.  Promises were made to Britain and France while Neutrality was touted in the States.  While some may feel the current Iraqi war is the son finishing the daddy's business, that reason has about enough sense as the morality aspect.  I think it was more exasperation after 12 years of ignored resolutions and stonewalling, quite aside from the fact that the US has always been the UN's muscle.  If the UN was a Mafia family, the US would be the enforcers, the ones who do the dirty work at the Don's behest.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
10 posted 2005-06-26 01:11 AM


Let’s say Roosevelt did know with absolute certainty,
( I remember reading a Jewish historian treating with
derision the “we didn’t know” argument pointing
to published reports in major newspapers of the time;
of course, one can then answer that unless you are in the
camps and can see the killing with your own eyes there
is no “knowing” certainty which is true and also convenient).
Would he have had a moral requirement
to act as he did, bringing his country into a war that cost
it some 350,000 lives?

In the Kitty Genovese case, some, when asked, simply answered
that they didn’t respond to her cries for help because they
didn’t want to get involved.  Assume for a moment there were no
phones to call the police;  was there a moral requirement
which was failed?


In Karen’s scenario, say the children were not hers or
those of anyone she cared for, and that she could by
leaving them behind save herself from harm whereas
remaining would certainly subject her to danger.  Is there
a moral requirement that she stay and defend them?

I guess what I’m trying to determine is if there is a moral
requirement to act, on a national or personal level, with risk
in situations beyond self-preservation.


P.S.

Mistletoe Angel,

“Your argument is flawed however. According to your argument, you say if someone as much as "thinks" that someone is bad . . .”

Please offer a quote from what I wrote to support this.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

11 posted 2005-06-26 01:19 AM


"An, no, Karen, there is no moral responsibility to protect yourself."

And I think there is.

The same morality that was once defined as being helpful to others, is now re-defined with a determination to be self-sustaining. I can't be of help to anyone if I'm in need of aid myself.

I've always lived on the edge, but now I get to live on the other side of that razor.

And while I understand temperance, (meaning I won't shoot and pull the thief through my window? If I so much as see one foot in? The cops will be looking for somebody with four toes.

Tired of being the victim, Ron.

(Saturday nights make me edgy here. I just had a neighbor advise me "to keep my dawgs hungry" too. Don't think I didn't think of that one awhile...is that what is happening to US?)

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
12 posted 2005-06-26 04:41 AM


"Ess? What if crackheads are climbing through your window?

Do you have a moral responsibility to allow that, or a moral responsibility to protect yourself and your children?"


Serenity

All men deserve to be protected and helped, not just my family and me, your family and you, but every man and every family.  It doesn't matter how evil a man is when we are talking about life and protection.  No man himself, or his life, or his worth, is the evil itself.  But evil itself is evil and you may only work against that by doing good, despite that evil.  Doing what is good deed and right even to those those that do what is evil and wrong,  defending even those that offend you.  You simply can't do right for a wrong, by doing a wrong.  You do right by doing right, despite the wrong.  

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

13 posted 2005-06-26 05:32 AM


For once I don't want semantics.

I want someone to tell me, if someone is climbing through your window--

and that person knows the way from before--

do you allow it to happen twice?

Ess, I'd love to believe that if I offered the amenities of my home, there would be some change of heart. But no...

They came in, broke bread with my family, took note of where the valuables might be, and then broke our windows. Then they stole Christmas from my kids.

Are you suggesting for a second I try that again?

(and this personal metaphor DOES translate to the larger picture, just not the way some might think)

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
14 posted 2005-06-26 09:02 AM


I thought I brought this subject up a few weeks ago in alley.  I love this topic.  Though I would change moral requirement to Moral obligation. I am not sure if requirement is the right word, but I am just an engineering student. perhaps.. over done(;

I'll return later for any kind of arguement.

Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic

The dictionary never lies.... I am magical (;

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
15 posted 2005-06-26 10:40 AM


quote:
The same morality that was once defined as being helpful to others ...

Defined by whom, Karen? That's certainly not the way I define morality.

Morality is about right and wrong. Is it right or wrong to tell someone a blatant lie? If you say, "It depends," you're now talking about ethics, not morality. Situational ethics is concerned with the outcome of specific circumstances, and many would indeed contend that telling a little white lie to a friend, perhaps to protect their feelings, is often the right thing to do. A moralist, on the other hand, would insist that lying is wrong.

quote:
(Saturday nights make me edgy here. I just had a neighbor advise me "to keep my dawgs hungry" too. Don't think I didn't think of that one awhile...is that what is happening to US?)

Sigh. At the risk of going off-topic, no, Karen, in my opinion that's not what is happening to us, but rather that's what we are doing. And, yea, there's a difference.

quote:
For once I don't want semantics.

But semantics can be important.

When morality becomes a requirement or an obligation, we give it a different name. We call it the law.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
16 posted 2005-06-26 12:18 PM


We can make a sort of syllogism out of Karen's premise;

Failure to defend one's self is suicide
Suicide is immoral
Therefore failure to defend one's self is immoral

This is dependent upon proving the declarative statement that suicide is immoral.  If one states that under the Christian premise it is immoral then, God, and Christ; are immoral.  As the Son of God, or the human embodiment of God he could have defended himself.

The answer to the question, 'is suicide immoral' has to be -- it depends.  What are the circumstances?    Is it immoral to risk death to push a child out of the path of an oncoming truck?  It's also true to the question of self-defense;

Was it moral for America to defend itself against the Japanese during the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Was it moral for Bonnie and Clyde to defend themselves from lawmen that were attempting to arrest or kill them?

Was it moral for Saddam Hussein to defend himself against an invading coalition army?

This is equally the case for defending property -- how was the property obtained?

Would Al Capone have the moral authority to defend his property?

Who among us is without sin?

A conditional would serve better;

When, or if suicide is immoral, then a failure to defend one's self would be immoral.

I think it's perfectly fine in your scenario Karen to defend yourself and your family.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
17 posted 2005-06-26 12:42 PM


quote:

Let’s say Roosevelt did know with absolute certainty



Which gets us what?  We knew with absolute certainty about Rwanda.  We know with absolute certainty about Darfour.  Historically we also know that Roosevelt was a cold fish who wasn't really all that concerned about human rights or, in particular, the plight of the Jews in Nazi Germany -- but rather nationalism and pragmatism guided him.  He did the right thing because he perceived it to be in the national interest.  Which is really only a step up from doing the wrong thing for the right reason if it is a step up at all.

This is the same guy who had no problem with Japanese American internment camps.



Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
18 posted 2005-06-26 01:25 PM


quote:
This is dependent upon proving the declarative statement that suicide is immoral.

I think you're getting ahead of yourself, LR. Even before that, you would have to prove that "Failure to defend one's self is suicide."

One might just as easily contend that birth, as a precursor to inevitable death, is suicide. Or, more directly perhaps, one could say that even failure to prepare for an adequate defense, say with a black belt or really big gun, is suicide.

I have a real problem with a contention that what someone else does imposes an obligation on me. Even self-defense has to be a choice.

quote:
I think it's perfectly fine in your scenario Karen to defend yourself and your family.

I think so, too. I just don't believe it has anything to do with morality.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
19 posted 2005-06-26 02:14 PM


Moral “obligation” will do just as well as “requirement”
in my question(s).

“We knew with absolute certainty about Rwanda.”

Good example, (800,000 men, women, and children, many butchered,
killed in 100 days).  Was a moral obligation failed?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
20 posted 2005-06-26 02:41 PM


"Ess, I'd love to believe that if I offered the amenities of my home, there would be some change of heart. But no...

They came in, broke bread with my family, took note of where the valuables might be, and then broke our windows. Then they stole Christmas from my kids.

Are you suggesting for a second I try that again?"


Windows, and objects, money, and Christmas, have sentimental value, but they don't compare to the presence and life of a man himself, no matter what that man ever was/is, said/says, does/did.  The weight of an evil and guilty man's words and deeds, don't ever lessen  deserving life and humanworth in life, or lessen the truth that he deserves to be saved from evil too, equally as an innocent man.



Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
21 posted 2005-06-26 02:49 PM


quote:

One might just as easily contend that birth, as a precursor to inevitable death, is suicide.



Or that having sex and conceiving is murder.

What DOES constitute responsibility Ron?  No man is an island.  Every choice that we make is influenced by the previous or potential actions of others.  We can choose to be moral.  We can choose to be immoral.  Merely because choice is involved doesn't abrogate responsibility if one exists.

quote:

Good example, (800,000 men, women, and children, many butchered,
killed in 100 days). Was a moral obligation failed?



Possibly -- but war is only one possible response to that obligation.  It certainly wasn't mandated.  The former top military man in the country made this statement;

"The only way to win the war on terror is to end poverty." -- Colin Powell


Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
22 posted 2005-06-26 02:50 PM


I think John did mean something you have no choice to do, but some thing you must do.  That is why I offerd the vocab change.  YOu see obligation may be overused, but better word. I think, evil is an infection from the inside.

How could I Leave children behind to face it alone?

The middle east has been like this since the beginnig of time.  A sin of the father passes to the son, for five generations. One can see how  this is true and how hard it is to get little old bad habbits to end when new ones can begin.  If no one stands up to evil, history will continue on over lapping and folding in to its self in to symetry.

  Unfortunetly there is that scary line which divides right and wrong.

Countries rise and fall, but as humans we will always be. You see it's the fear and gread that will drive us the wrong way, but it is far worse to let arrigance and placing ones self above others as a driving motive in a decision.\\\\


Just a thought,

Juju

Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic

The dictionary never lies.... I am magical (;

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
23 posted 2005-06-26 11:20 PM


"One might just as easily contend that birth, as a precursor to inevitable death, is suicide. Or, more directly perhaps, one could say that even failure to prepare for an adequate defense, say with a black belt or really big gun, is suicide."


We as poets should recognize those are metaphors though (I believe).  Birth is not literally suicide.  Birth is birth.  And failing to defend oneself is failing to defend onself. I think one may, if crafty enough probably make anything metaphorically out as any other thing if he really would.   If you refer to these things literally though, the meanings are much more direct and sound.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
24 posted 2005-06-28 10:21 AM



Is there any reason to risk one’s life
in Slobia for Slobians, however terrible whatever
is being inflicted on them, if in the best end
all you will have saved or preserved
are Slobs to be Slobs?



Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
25 posted 2005-06-28 10:42 AM


I have already answered that question,  There is no need to repeat my self

-Juju

Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic

The dictionary never lies.... I am magical (;

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
26 posted 2005-06-30 03:37 PM



Was England morally right
in declaring war against Germany
for invading Belgium in 1914,
for invading Poland in 1939?

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
27 posted 2005-06-30 08:25 PM


Were they doing it to help Poland or because it was to their own advantage?
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
28 posted 2005-06-30 08:38 PM


LR,

What advantage?

And what about 1914?
They could have easily sat within
their island empire protected by the greatest navy in the world
while the Germans and French killed each other,
with the Belgians in between,
rather than sacrifice their sons in the trenches.*

*Including John Kipling, son of Rudyard,
just turned 18,
last seen crawling around on his hands and knees, crying,
shot in the mouth at the battle of Loos, (My Boy Jack).
Without his glasses he was as good as blind.
Can you imagine that?

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (06-30-2005 09:14 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
29 posted 2005-06-30 10:02 PM


Add Dr. Karl Haushofer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Haushofer  to your studies and Lebensraum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum  and then tell me why it wasn't to England's (and France's) advantage to maintain it's trading partners on the continent instead of being holed up behind the channel -- where they would have eventually fallen to a regime that controlled not only the entire resources of Europe but Russia and Asia as well...

Then ask this -- why didn't they declare war on Russia when it invaded Poland two weeks after Hitler?

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
30 posted 2005-07-04 02:51 PM


Now the question has changed from presant to past. I am not sure what to say. A lot of should a could haves.  That's the problem about being a critic to things that have happened 0ver 50 or 60 years ago.  


-Juju    

Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic

The dictionary never lies.... I am magical (;

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
31 posted 2005-07-04 07:55 PM


LR,

I really don't think England went to war
when Hitler invaded Poland to protect it’s economics.
England could have prospered with Hitler as with Wilhelm
who both, (hating the French), considered the English cousins.
As to "living space" that Hitler notion, (and derived from others),
dated back to  Mein Kampf looking East.  I think England did not
declare war on the Soviet Union to help the rift
which the Soviet-German Pact of 39 only served
as poor mask, (everyone knew there would come
a war between the two).      

Juju,

Both England's declarations in 1914 and 1939
can strike one as examples of a moral decision
to go to war and therefore are worth consideration
as such.
  

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
32 posted 2005-07-04 10:46 PM


Austria-Hungary
Czechloslovokia

no declarations of war either John.

Why did England declare war on Napoleon? -- he was just liberating countries from dictatorships, spreading freedom and democracy...human rights... things turn very quickly though -- as the French idealists discovered.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
33 posted 2005-07-05 12:49 PM


nah,

Don't want to leave it that nebulous or deceptive -- it's a trick question since technically Napoleon declared war on England first -- and that's the point..  the French revolutionaries thought they had the moral high-ground, and, we can say that their ideals weren't all that bad -- but going to war simply to enact them unleashed something far more evil than the ills they aimed to correct -- ergo we view Napoleon today as the megalomaniacal aggressor instead of the liberator he intended himself to be.

It goes back to one of my main themes -- democracy imposed from without is the worst tyranny.

You want to romanticize war by looking for a moral necessity to make war.  While there ARE moral responsibilities if we are to have civilization -- war is the result of not fulfilling them rather than being one of them.  Chamberlain and the League of Nations were remiss in containing the democratically elected Hitler because they were far more interested in pragmatism, appeasing Hitler was a bad idea in retrospect -- but war wasn't necessarily the solution either.

England, America, and France sat back while the Nazis terrorized the Jews within Germany.

While there was a moral component to the war from the Allied perspective -- the issues are far more complex than what you want to make them out to be -- we do the same thing with the Civil war -- sure it was great to end slavery -- and even though Lincoln was an abolitionist -- he didn't end slavery in the USA with the Emancipation Proclamation -- only in the rebelling Confederate States.  It wasn't the underlying cause for the war -- it's just hard to take it that that many people died without having a good cause attached to it.

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
34 posted 2005-07-05 12:51 PM


Auh...  But can you really judge things we did not touch or expeirience? History books are recorded by men and and there are variables as you go to different locations. I am simply arguing that since so much time has gone by, it is foolish to say moral obligations are what drove countries to war.  Wars are too complicated.  The problem with complicated situations is it is hard to place blame or distasre on the outcomes.  Sometimes if things were done differently... a much worse senerio happens. I suggest you read up on ancient greece.  Many wars,  and they all seem stupid, but the more you read the more you understand decisions.

-Juju

Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic

The dictionary never lies.... I am magical (;

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
35 posted 2005-07-05 08:25 PM


"appeasing Hitler was a bad idea in retrospect -- but war wasn't necessarily the solution either."


What might have been instead,
especially after appeasement had failed?

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
36 posted 2005-07-05 08:38 PM


Policing the perimiters and enforcing the Treaty of Versailles, a military deployment need not go to war to be effective -- crippling Hitler's ability to build an army and an active deterrent would have gone a long way.

Prior to that -- had an effective Marshall-type plan been in place to rebuild Germany after WWI the economic and political climate wouldn't have been as favorable for Hitler to succeed politically.

Anti-Semitism -- I don't know what could have been done about that -- it was rampant in Europe and America -- Hitler got half his material from Henry Ford.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
37 posted 2005-07-05 09:07 PM



LR,


“Policing the perimiters and enforcing the Treaty of Versailles, a military deployment need not go to war to be effective -- crippling Hitler's ability to build an army and an active deterrent would have gone a long way.”

The anti-war sentiment, at least in England and the United States, was too great for that kind of
aggressive policing.

“Prior to that -- had an effective Marshall-type plan been in place to rebuild Germany after WWI the economic and political climate wouldn't have been as favorable for Hitler to succeed politically.’

Unlike World War II, Germany itself was relatively untouched physically by World War I,
The greatest damage was done by a  blockade  that caused significant suffering, even
death, among the civilian population.  That blockade, though not immediately, did disappear
with the end of the war .

Germany as a nation in it’s short history, (beginning circa 1870), extolled the sword as a, if not the, ways and means to achieve it’s national ambitions or to avenge their thwarting.  The “master race” was a belief and their right to rule at any cost to the subjected a given for many in power
as well as those who carried out orders they themselves would have written.

“Anti-Semitism -- I don't know what could have been done about that -- it was rampant in Europe and America -- Hitler got half his material from Henry Ford.”

Hitler didn’t need Henry Ford.  There was plenty of proven in blood Anti-Semitism before
any who could have call himself an “American” was born.


Someone once said that a nation should go to war out of the highest charity
or deepest need.  Neither of us dispute the latter.  It is the idea of war for
others, for risking oneself for others than one’s legal/declared own that is questioned here.
It’s is like seeing a child being attacked on the road outside one’s strong castle;
it’s not my child; why should I care; why should I bother . . .






Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
38 posted 2005-07-05 09:25 PM


How is placing ones children above other children any different then placing ones self in front of others. Are you argueing for nepitism? This goes back to the point I rebuted earlier. It is wrong to think you or others are better.  I stand by that.

-Juju

Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic

The dictionary never lies.... I am magical (;

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
39 posted 2005-07-05 09:37 PM



Juju,

“How is placing ones children above other children any different then placing ones self in front of others. Are you argueing for nepitism? This goes back to the point I rebuted earlier. It is wrong to think you or others are better.  I stand by that.”

How is valuing my child, my son’s life, over the lives of other children wrong?
How is my rather choosing to watch countless others die in agony
than my child suffer the discomfort of a paper cut let alone have his life risked
wrong in your world?

John

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
40 posted 2005-07-05 09:48 PM


quote:

Unlike World War II, Germany itself was relatively untouched physically by World War I,
The greatest damage was done by a  blockade  that caused significant suffering, even
death, among the civilian population.  That blockade, though not immediately, did disappear
with the end of the war .



I don't think this adequately describes the situation for Germany post WWI.  The nation was devastated economically by world-wide recession (or great depression) that was caused by

A. Soldiers returning home and needing jobs combined with sharp reductions in production of military materiel that was required for the war

B. Heavy government debts incurred during the war.

C. The Bolshevik revolution in Russia removing that country from the world economy

The effect was far greater in the defeated powers that were plagued by hyperinflation.  Germany was additionally forced to pay war reparations and had much of it's production machinery and capital confiscated by the Allied powers.  Many, many, labor revolutions popped up all over Europe including England's first Labour Party rule -- Mussolini's blackshirts in Italy, communists in Germany -- and ultimately  -- the Nazi party.

It was Chamberlain's and England's desire to assist the region in recovery that led them to look the other way.



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
41 posted 2005-07-05 09:58 PM



“The nation was devastated economically by world-wide recession (or great depression)”

“world-wide recession “

Which means no one, (including the Americans where unemployment reached as high
as 20%), were in a position to help anyone.  And remember it happened in 1929,
not 1918.

Germany was not some oppressed misunderstood child
who if given a better economic chance would have turned out differently.
It was a nation that honored a sort of Viking ethic, the same way
the Japanese revered Bushido through the centuries.



Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
42 posted 2005-07-05 10:07 PM


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_I

The market crash was in 1929.  You could argue that the post WWI recession and the Great Depression were separate entities since there was a brief recovery in 26-27, but it started at the end of the War.

Just because the recession was world-wide doesn't mean that there weren't actions that could have been taken by the League of Nations, the U.S., Britian, or France that could have helped to bring Germany (which had once been the strongest economy) back from the brink... all could have waited for reparations until it was on its feet -- why lop the head off the goose?

But you're right -- America was too isolationist.   Mistakes were made -- it doesn't mean there weren't alternatives.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
43 posted 2005-07-05 10:13 PM



LR,

Viking
Bushido

I inadvertently touched on something here.
How do you deal with an ethic that finds meaning
and glory in war?


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
44 posted 2005-07-05 10:34 PM


This question isn't specific enough.  

premise?
inferences?
conclusion?

If whatA then whatB?

If whatB then whatC?

Then whatA = whatC?


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
45 posted 2005-07-05 10:45 PM



LR,


You've fallen into a pit my friend.

You’ve seeking a rational sequence, a logical explanation,
for irrational, illogical, behavior.

If we were logical, rational, as Mother Nature,
in times of need, we would readily
eat our own young.

John

P.S.  This is fun, isn’t it?


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
46 posted 2005-07-05 11:03 PM


history, anthropology, interesting and essential -- as food is a necessity to life -- that it can be palatable or even appetizing is always a bonus.

what you may think is irrational may not really be at all -- from the man who calls us mother nature's playthings;
http://www.howardbloom.net/chimpanzees_and_romans.htm

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
47 posted 2005-07-06 11:53 AM


And Once again who are we to say what is right or wrong.good or bad.  When things are so big we can only follow simple principles.  Only I think it is a dangerous game to compare the war in iraq to ww1 and ww2.  They  are completly different wars.  That is like comparing the American reveloulutionary war to the war of 1812.  Related, but not the same. Remember that freedom and morality are to completly different things.

-JUju

Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic

The dictionary never lies.... I am magical (;

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
48 posted 2005-07-06 12:38 PM


"How do you deal with an ethic that finds meaning
and glory in war?"


An ETHIC finds meaning and glory in righteousness and peace, not in violence and slaughter.

How do you deal with the EVIL that finds meaning and glory in violence and slaughter?  

You overcome it with the ETHIC, meaning and glory of PEACE.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
49 posted 2005-07-06 12:39 PM


"They  are completly different wars."


Violence, slaughter, death.

Not really.

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
50 posted 2005-07-06 02:53 PM


Well then in that perspective perhapps all wars are the same.  Yet unfortunitly unavoidable, because not every one thinks alike.  Not that I would wish that upon the world...

Juju - 1.) a magic charm or fetish 2.)Magic 3.)A taboo connected woth the use of magic

The dictionary never lies.... I am magical (;

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » a moral requirement to go to war

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary