Supporting the troops = glorifying war?

Post Reply New Topic

Um, there's not really a way to peacefully discuss something when negotiations have been broken off by one side and the use of dangerous force has been approved by either against the other side. <.<

Maybe if we weren't so brutal to Germany prior to the war, they would have never elected the batshits that they did.

And maybe if I had a time machine I could have killed Hitler before he was elected. "Maybe ifs" are worthless.

There will never be peace when people continue to believe peace is not possible.

Wait, what? Prior to which war? You do know Germany did attack first before the first war, grieved and self-pitied themselves over their loss, wished to be proud of itself again, which is why it started the second war, right? <.< So how were we "brutal" in any way? Also, said batshits came across as pretty civilized when they were elected, mind you. It's only later on that progressively Jews and other groups were first exported off the territory and THEN gradually murdered in an industrial fashion and scale. Do note that there was reaction from the German populace after the Kristalnacht (even if timid), which is why none of the concentration and extermination camps were in Germany afterwards. <.<

Also, this topic is straying a bit too much from the OP's point, for my taste...

The craziness of the Nazi party was always apparent. I mean Mein Kampf was out in the '20s. Yes, a lot of Germans opposed the Nazis, and I would think most would have disapproved of the extent of the Holocaust - but a good deal of Germany's aggression had to do with the fact that, yes they were the aggressors of WW1, but they were punished WAY too hard.

And do you really think the devastation of Hamburg and Dresden was necessary?

Any more than the destruction of the Allied towns that were resisting? <.<

Excuse me, but I do NOT think that the Nazis were justified in trying to take over Europe. Their actions were unnecessary, criminal and excessive.

The Americans neither started nor perpetuated World War II: we ended it. The British neither started nor perpetuated World War II: they were subjected to it. The French neither started nor perpetuated World War II: they were victims of it. The Nazis started and perpetuated World War II, and there was no alternative at the time to brute force in the interest of stopping them.

Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on 27 Dec 2011, 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I was referring to the forces fighting against the Nazis rather than simply allowing them to invade, as would have been the "peaceful" alternative.

Off-topic, and I don't know if it's been said already, but the timing of the involvement of the Americans in the World Wars was pretty much like that of their cavalry; they always arrive better late than ever. :p

Passively allowing violence against oneself or others is not peaceful whatsoever, though, wouldn't you say?

I am making a philosophical argument. I am arguing that incidental violence in the interest of curtailing violence is a different sort of thing from violence in the interest of greed or violence in the interest of hate, spite or vengeance.

Furthermore, is violence unto itself an evil? Is it possible that unjust violence is an evil, and just violence is a good? If so, it is justice that is good, and it is injustice that is evil. In this case, to decry unjust violence is to decry injustice, not to decry violence.

But then we are left with the question of what does or does not constitute "justice."

Good point, and I'd say that society basically agrees that violence with reasonable intent to fight violence with unreasonable intent is acceptable - look at personal defense laws. Fighting against a force like the Nazis is basically an upscaled version of that same principle, and I don't think any "reasonable" person would actually argue that allowing the Nazis to invade is a positive course of action.

Obviously what the Nazis did was beyond evil and they deserve the blame for their horrific crimes.

However, the seeds of the conflict were planted 20 years earlier at the end of WWI. WWII may of been justified but WWI was pointless. One has to wonder how different the world would of been if the US never got involved in that war.

No, wars are not over until the politicians say they are - wars are started and ended by politicians; they are only fought by military personnel.

Without the troops there is no war. They ARE the war.