Can there be a just war?

[kuzadd]

I'm afraid you just don't get it. You're not even arguing the same point. No one is disputing the fact that the hardest fighting took place on the eastern front. In fact, Stalingrad was probably the most vicous battle in human history. But that's not the point. The point is that the USSR entered the war well after the allies, so it's silly to argue that the allies entered the war to stop the USSR. Further, the first year of the barbarossa invasion saw the USSR in full rout, and it was widely expected across the globe that the USSR would be overrun by 1943 at the latest.

scottsa: WW2, is so convoluted, Russia was an ally of the west, so I guess we should clarifiy which allies we speak of at what times.

When Hitler, launched his first attack, which way did he go, he went east , to Poland, why?

The Eastern front was the front of the most massive casualties, one must surmise, that the prize for Germany had all along been Russia, despite there agreement to not fight on another.

It is quite likely the attack on Poland had been the first indicator of this.

Casualties on the western front were substantially less, indicating to my mind, this was not as important as the march eastward.

When one looks at a map after ww2, one sees clearly how much territory had been gained by Russia, through war with Germany and subsequent occupation.

Given the unending concern of the US, with Russia, (the 2 superpowers) it is not the least bit unbelievable that the US has an interest in seeing Russia's westward march stopped.

The quest afterwards to gain Nazi scientists , and gather Nazi's for the US's benefit is also another indicator of the threat the Russian ww2 actions had posed to the US.

Amongst other things.

anyway, this is about just war, and I should like to see it as that.

If ww2 was about just (justice) why then did the US , undertake to fill there ranks with the worst of the worst of the nazi's, it could not have been "just" it could have only been power.

[ScottSA]

I'm afraid you just don't get it. You're not even arguing the same point. No one is disputing the fact that the hardest fighting took place on the eastern front. In fact, Stalingrad was probably the most vicous battle in human history. But that's not the point. The point is that the USSR entered the war well after the allies, so it's silly to argue that the allies entered the war to stop the USSR. Further, the first year of the barbarossa invasion saw the USSR in full rout, and it was widely expected across the globe that the USSR would be overrun by 1943 at the latest.

scottsa: WW2, is so convoluted, Russia was an ally of the west, so I guess we should clarifiy which allies we speak of at what times.

When Hitler, launched his first attack, which way did he go, he went east , to Poland, why?

The Eastern front was the front of the most massive casualties, one must surmise, that the prize for Germany had all along been Russia, despite there agreement to not fight on another.

It is quite likely the attack on Poland had been the first indicator of this.

Casualties on the western front were substantially less, indicating to my mind, this was not as important as the march eastward.

When one looks at a map after ww2, one sees clearly how much territory had been gained by Russia, through war with Germany and subsequent occupation.

Given the unending concern of the US, with Russia, (the 2 superpowers) it is not the least bit unbelievable that the US has an interest in seeing Russia's westward march stopped.

The quest afterwards to gain Nazi scientists , and gather Nazi's for the US's benefit is also another indicator of the threat the Russian ww2 actions had posed to the US.

Amongst other things.

anyway, this is about just war, and I should like to see it as that.

If ww2 was about just (justice) why then did the US , undertake to fill there ranks with the worst of the worst of the nazi's, it could not have been "just" it could have only been power.

You're making about 18 different arguments here, so lets focus on your original argument: that the allies entered the war to stop the westward march of the USSR. I and others are attempting to point out that the allies entered the war long before the USSR began its westward march. No one is disputing that Hitler's expansionist policies lay to the east...he made that clear in the early 1920s when he began to bang the leibenstrau drum...that's not at issue. Russia was not a superpower at the time...but that's not at issue either. What the allies did after the war is not at issue either.

If I were to argue that WW II was a "just" war from the perspective of the western European allies, I would say it was fought to preserve the integrity of sovereignty and the final shreds of dignity still left to alliance politics. I would say the USSR and the US fought a just war because they entered the war defensively through no fault of their own (cue here for poly or his clones to pop up and edumacate us on the Rooseveltian plot to bomb PH). Of course, if Germany had won, it would argue that the Treaty of Versailles had forced it into war (in spite of the fact that by 1939 the treaty was moot), or even, as Hitler's convoluted thought process went, that leibenstrau was necessary to the German volk and the war was therefrore just. I don't think he would have even bothered invoking the faked attack by Poland, or in fact any of the traditional justifications for war.

Thomas Aquinas developed his ideas long before the rise of relativism destroyed absolutes in academic thinking processes, so what used to make unerring sense no longer seems to. But that doesn't mean, as you seem to suggest, that greed or self-interest is the prime motivator everywhere and always. It isn't. And unnoticed by many folks is the fact that relativism is losing ground on a lot of fronts these days...and in spite of some of the dangers, I can only think it's a good thing.

[M.Dancer]

Perhaps after looking at a map, you ought to glance at a timeline. You really ought to back away from this argument as quickly and as quietly as possible.

not only have I looked at a map, I seen a timeline, read books

and why oh why did you leave the rest of my post out,

here it is ,

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_Allied_nat...ing_World_War_2

Many scholars agree that the USSR (Soviet Union, Russia) is most responsible for defeating Germany in World War 2, but that they could not have done it without the US and UK on the Western Front.

"Without doubt, the USSR played the largest part in holding the Nazi expansion and therefore in winning WW2. "

"It's obvious that the Russians faced the bulk of the German army and I have the deepest respect for the Russian soldier."

Look at the amount of casulaties on the varying fronts easter vs western you will see where the greatest fighting was taking place.

Therefore the USSR was going full guns and would have taken all of Europe the "alliance" inc the US/ Britian and Russia, was over before it had begun since the Brits and Americans did ZERO to aid Russia.

you are not worth my time!

I'm afraid you just don't get it. You're not even arguing the same point. No one is disputing the fact that the hardest fighting took place on the eastern front. In fact, Stalingrad was probably the most vicous battle in human history. But that's not the point. The point is that the USSR entered the war well after the allies, so it's silly to argue that the allies entered the war to stop the USSR. Further, the first year of the barbarossa invasion saw the USSR in full rout, and it was widely expected across the globe that the USSR would be overrun by 1943 at the latest.

In fact, after months of Churchill sending polite notes to Stalin warning him that British Intellegence believed Hitler would atack the USSR....and the note being ignored....when the blow came and the russians staggered back in full retreat Churchill was deeply worried that the USSR would fall and with it the spoils to Hitler. Then and there Churchill resolved he would contact Stalin with the objective that the USSR would be nourished and kept in the war.

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not sure why the USSR retreated in full rout all the way to Moscow, leaving their equipment and dead strewn all along the way. Perhaps you could explain this to us?

LOL! Also explain how the Russians "kicked ass" without American war materials delivered by sealift and hacking the AlCan highway through Canada. Start by counting the American made trucks.

[daniel]

Back to the original topic:

I do not think there has ever been a just war.

War is horrible and people on both sides do awful things.

There have been wars that had to be fought, but no war is 'just'.

It's funny how we come to this conclusion after the latest war. But in buildup of the next war, this is all forgotten or shrugged off as irrelevant. Note: Iraq War part 2 and the criticism of the UN.

[Mad_Michael]

Start by counting the American made trucks.

Right. The Russkies defeated the Nazis by running them over with all those trucks!

Btw, I presume you are aware that the USA placed very strict limits on any assistence given to the USSR during WW2 - making sure nothing was an offensive weapon - trucks and armored cars only (no guns or ammo).

Admittedly, this is useful stuff and I'm sure the USSR was thankful for the help, but hardly 'make or break' support.

Anyways, I'm of the view that USSR defeated Nazi Germany pretty much single-handedly. Quite an impressive feat. All the storm and thunder of the western allies didn't ultimately amount to much. No one could have known or predicted that at the time, but hindsight does provide the ability to look back at this stuff. This doesn't devalue the western allies contributions or thier sacrifices - those sacrifices were made in a good cause, with noble motives. Ultimately, it probably wasn't necessary, but we couldn't have known that back in 1939.

[White Doors]

I was waiting for the WW2 reference, it's not credible.

The "allies" joined in to fight the "evil nazis" is the spin, the allies, went in to fight to stop the USSR from marching on through and taking Europe as was happening and was going to happen.

Uhhhh.... The allies joined WW2 in 1939... Germany and SU did not start to fight until after this... ergo, your tripe is just that, tripe.

The 'allies" knew for a very long time about the imprisoning/ killings of the, Jewish, communists, unionists, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovh's witness's or undesirables, as deemed by the nazi's, this was not the "just cause" for the invasion, the communists were on the march, Russia, was kicking butt, and that had to be stopped. The allies didn't give one whit that the "undesirables" were being killed. It just became good pr afterwards.

This doesn't make any sense and is just plain wrong. The Allies were fighting the fight before Germany and the SU even started fighting.

You shouldn't talk about stuff you have clearly have no clue about unless you enjoy looking like a fool?

actually you shouldn;t talk because you look a fool.

By the allies, I am including the US, by the time the US got to Europe, get a map and look at how much Russia had advanced, they were stopped in Germany , on there way through.

Ergo, Russia was kicking butt, and all of Europe was going to fall to the communists.

go read a book or ten!

hahahaha!!!

OH MY GOD. such WILLFULL ignorance. The USA joined on Dec 7 1941 against Japan and a week later against Germany after Germany decalred war. The German's were kicking russian ass well up into 1943.

Do you care to embarass yourself further?

I find it quite enjoyable myself.

[White Doors]

I wanted to say army guy, thanks for being an honest debater, but, Can there be a just war, I don't see it, given the fact that the history of war is not just, the reasons for war are not just, always it seems war is used a s a means to steal land, resources, etc., and not much else.

if there is anything JUST ( righteous) about war, it is in the people who fight back, who defend, to keep , what is theirs, theirs homes, theirs families.

That is all the just (justice) I can see in war, much anything else, reeks of conquest.

good-day to you!

Your opinion of wether war is just or not would probably be taken more seriously if you only had your basic facts correct about WW2....

[M.Dancer]

Btw, I presume you are aware that the USA placed very strict limits on any assistence given to the USSR during WW2 - making sure nothing was an offensive weapon - trucks and armored cars only (no guns or ammo).

Explain how an armoured car isn't an offensive weapon?

Then explain how 14,000 aircraft, 131,000 machine guns and 345,000 tons of explosives were also non offensive......

The list 1 below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from its beginning until 30 September 1945.

Aircraft 14,795

Tanks 7,056

Jeeps 51,503

Trucks 375,883

Motorcycles 35,170

Tractors 8,071

Guns 8,218

Machine guns 131,633

Explosives 345,735 tons

Building equipment valued $10,910,000

Railroad freight cars 11,155

Locomotives 1,981

Cargo ships 90

Submarine hunters 105

Torpedo boats 197

Ship engines 7,784

Food supplies 4,478,000 tons

Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000

Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons

Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons

Chemicals 842,000 tons

Cotton 106,893,000 tons

Leather 49,860 tons

Tires 3,786,000

Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US...iveries_to_USSR

[Mad_Michael]

I do not think there has ever been a just war.

War is horrible and people on both sides do awful things.

There have been wars that had to be fought, but no war is 'just'.

If you define war as 'unjust' by definition, there is no surprise that you would conclude that there has never been a 'just' war.

Indeed, that is called a 'tautology'.

[Army Guy]

The 'allies" knew for a very long time about the imprisoning/ killings of the, Jewish, communists, unionists, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovh's witness's or undesirables, as deemed by the nazi's, this was not the "just cause" for the invasion,

I don't think anyone is contending the fact that the holocaust played no role in any of the allieds decisions to enter the war with the NAZI's, i think Nazi expansion into europe was reason enough for "JUST Cause"

The source beow indicates that it was not until 1942 that the US had learned about germany's plans for the jews...at this time Stalin was presures allieds to open a second front, and by the beginning of 1942

3.500.000 Red Army soldiers were in captivity and 4.000.000 had died in battle. At one time the Germans occupied some 900.000 square miles-1.440.000 square km of Soviet territory. at this time it does not look good for mother russia, infact it takes her the entire year of 42 just to start recovering some of her own territory from the germans "hardly" could be called kicking ass.

USA.

Russia didn't get her "ass kicked" revisionist western history, at it's worst.

Lossing some 7.5 million troops can hardly be called kicking ass.

I wanted to say army guy, thanks for being an honest debater, but, Can there be a just war, I don't see it, given the fact that the history of war is not just, the reasons for war are not just, always it seems war is used a s a means to steal land, resources, etc., and not much else.

Depending on who's side your on i'd say yes, In the allieds eyes fighting the NAZI's was a just war as they filled all the requirements listed in those ref's i provided. History will always be written according to the victor. The reasons for could cover anything...

if there is anything JUST ( righteous) about war, it is in the people who fight back, who defend, to keep , what is theirs, theirs homes, theirs families.

I've been in countless conflicts, and nothing is righteous about war, it's full of hate, misery, death, and destruction. At the bottom level or personal level nothing good comes of it. On the national level there may be pride in destroying an unjust enemy with an unjust cause , or regaining things like freedoms etc.

[ScottSA]

Anyways, I'm of the view that USSR defeated Nazi Germany pretty much single-handedly.

Well, now we know fer shur that the allies were instrumental in defeating Hitler. There's another of those pesky historical questions cleared up by the scientific certainty that if Mad Mikey says 'white,' the real answer is 'black.'

[ScottSA]

Then explain how 14,000 aircraft, 131,000 machine guns and 345,000 tons of explosives were also non offensive......

The list 1 below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from its beginning until 30 September 1945.

Aircraft 14,795

Tanks 7,056

Jeeps 51,503

Trucks 375,883

Motorcycles 35,170

Tractors 8,071

Guns 8,218

Machine guns 131,633

Explosives 345,735 tons

Building equipment valued $10,910,000

Railroad freight cars 11,155

Locomotives 1,981

Cargo ships 90

Submarine hunters 105

Torpedo boats 197

Ship engines 7,784

Food supplies 4,478,000 tons

Machines and equipment $1,078,965,000

Non-ferrous metals 802,000 tons

Petroleum products 2,670,000 tons

Chemicals 842,000 tons

Cotton 106,893,000 tons

Leather 49,860 tons

Tires 3,786,000

Army boots 15,417,001 pairs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US...iveries_to_USSR

Like India's nuclear weapons, they were for "peaceful purposes." Never seen a Sherman hitched to a plow? The ground doesn't stand a chance. The machine guns were for pest control. Stop making a mountain out of 4 trillion tonnes of rock a molehill.

[FascistLibertarian]

If you define war as 'unjust' by definition, there is no surprise that you would conclude that there has never been a 'just' war.

Indeed, that is called a 'tautology'

Okay if you want to play like that.

There has never been a just war (ww2 is the classic example, anyone who thinks it was just probably has not studied it enough).

There never will be a just war.

But, there could be a just war (somewhat Platonic I guess...).

[M.Dancer]

Would Britain's war on slavers be just?

....to the slaves it would

[FascistLibertarian]

It seems like a good example.

They did seize and keep ships which carried slaves.

And they did use violence (specifically against Brazil, not sure where else) when diplomacy didnt work.

Also they punished people for something that they themselves had been doing recently.

And they were still very racist.

I guess it depends on what prespective you have. Yeah it was probably great for most of the slaves.

[ScottSA]

It seems like a good example.

They did seize and keep ships which carried slaves.

And they did use violence (specifically against Brazil, not sure where else) when diplomacy didnt work.

Also they punished people for something that they themselves had been doing recently.

And they were still very racist.

I guess it depends on what prespective you have. Yeah it was probably great for most of the slaves.

You're not looking for a just war, or anything to do with just war theory, for that matter. You're looking for 100% pure sweetness and light, and you'll be hard pressed to find it in any facet of life, much less war.

[Mad_Michael]

The list 1 below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from its beginning until 30 September 1945.

Thanks for the correction.

It will be interesting to see how that Lend-Lease list squares with the Congressional authorisation of support to USSR. Could be two different programs going here.... I'll have to follow this up.

I admit that this is the first I've heard of any substantive weaponry shipped by USA to USSR during WW2. Lots of trucks, armored cars, aircraft and non-military material, no doubt of that, but I've seen dozens of references to the US prohibition against weaponry shipments to USSR in various books/articles about the Eastern Front so I'm now interested in how that was resolved through the Lend-Lease program.

[Mad_Michael]

If you define war as 'unjust' by definition, there is no surprise that you would conclude that there has never been a 'just' war.

Indeed, that is called a 'tautology'

Okay if you want to play like that.

There has never been a just war (ww2 is the classic example, anyone who thinks it was just probably has not studied it enough).

There never will be a just war.

But, there could be a just war (somewhat Platonic I guess...).

I'm not playing anything. I'm just pointing out the logical ramifications of your statement.

Can you give us your definition of a 'just war'?

[M.Dancer]

The list 1 below is the amount of war matériel shipped to the Soviet Union through the Lend-Lease program from its beginning until 30 September 1945.

Thanks for the correction.

It will be interesting to see how that Lend-Lease list squares with the Congressional authorisation of support to USSR. Could be two different programs going here.... I'll have to follow this up.

I admit that this is the first I've heard of any substantive weaponry shipped by USA to USSR during WW2. Lots of trucks, armored cars, aircraft and non-military material, no doubt of that, but I've seen dozens of references to the US prohibition against weaponry shipments to USSR in various books/articles about the Eastern Front so I'm now interested in how that was resolved through the Lend-Lease program.

Prior to the war and of course after 47...you are right. they did not supply arms to the USSR...in fact, Churchill was a leading interventionist supplying troops to fight the Red Army in the north of Russia during the 1919-20s

[Moxie]

Any war that is waged to save the oppressed, abused and enslaved by a Communist/Islamic dictator is just in my book. The world has stayed silent long enough while genocide takes place, to act after the fact is cowardly. One only has to look at Dafur to see what happens when a vicious dicator like the President of Sudan is allowed to commit genocide (with the support of China and France) in the name of some false prophet.

I will never be a pacifist, to do nothing but commit words, to me, is an act of treason towards your fellow man. It's easy to be a coward, it takes brave men to take a stand and fight.

[bush_cheney2004]

Start by counting the American made trucks.

Right. The Russkies defeated the Nazis by running them over with all those trucks!

Btw, I presume you are aware that the USA placed very strict limits on any assistence given to the USSR during WW2 - making sure nothing was an offensive weapon - trucks and armored cars only (no guns or ammo).

Admittedly, this is useful stuff and I'm sure the USSR was thankful for the help, but hardly 'make or break' support.

Uhh..OK...but I hope you don't mind if I take General Zhukov's word over your opinion:

from "The Role of Lend-Lease in Soviet Military

Efforts, 1941-1945" by BORIS V. SOKOLOV, which clearly states that the USSR

was all but done for without Lend Lease.

Quoting Zhukov:

"Speaking about our readiness for war from the point of view of the economy and

economics, one cannot be silent about such a factor as the subsequent help from

the Allies. First of all, certainly, from the American side, because in that

respect the English helped us minimally. In an analysis of all facets of the

war, one must not leave this out of one's reckoning. We would have been in a

serious condition without American gunpowder, and could not have turned out the

quantity of ammunition which we needed. Without American `Studebekkers' [sic],

we could have dragged our artillery nowhere. Yes, in general, to a considerable

degree they provided ourfront transport. The output of special steel, necessary

for the most diverse necessities of war, were also connected to a series of

American deliveries."

Moreover, Zhukov underscored that `we entered war while still continuing to be a

backward country in an industrial sense in comparison with Germany. Simonov's

truthful recounting of these meetings with Zhukov, which took place in 1965 and

1966, are corraborated by the utterances of G. Zhukov, recorded as a result of

eavesdropping by security organs in 1963:

"It is now said that the Allies never helped us . . . However, one cannot deny

that the Americans gave us so much material, without which we could not have

formed our reserves and ***could not have continued the war*** . . . we had no

explosives and powder. There was none to equip rifle bullets. The Americans

actually came to our assistance with powder and explosives. And how much sheet

steel did they give us. We really could not have quickly put right our

production of tanks if the Americans had not helped with steel. And today it

seems as though we had all this ourselves in abundance."

[FascistLibertarian]

I would say a war where one side was in the right (which is all positional), had a reason they had to fight, and did not commit war crimes could be a just war.

Wars are usually started by a small minority (oligarchs).

Basically one side would have to be not only morally superior to their foe but morally superior overall.

I just think once a war starts being just goes out the window because you HAVE to win, and you will do anything to win, so lets throw out the rules.

Its why conventions often dont work.

Innocent people get killed.

I really do not know enough about the UK and ending the slave trade. I dont think im fit to judge if it was a just war or not.

bush_cheney2004 I agree.

America produced so much. They helped out Can, UK, Aus, China, and USSR (among others).

By the end the Russians were out producing the Germans.

German arm production is so intresting (check out spears book, its a must read!)

As the same time, Germany was never able to reach high enough production levels (they did not reach ww1 levels) and Japan was producing equal to Canada and Aus in 1941 (1/10th of prewar us industry).

You also have to look at where material was destroyed.

Hitler considered the West to be the main theatre (which confused everyone else).

He wasted tanks, B-Boats and airplanes against the Western Allies that he could not afford to.

He also invested in the wrong tech and made a lot of the wrong thing and too little of the right things.

[August1991]

We've got two threads going here.

1. What constitutes a "just war"? I offered a definition above and I haven't seen anything here to change my mind.

The question amounts to an ethical question. When is the use of physical force justified? I think that the use of force is ethical it reduces further mayhem. That's usually why people call the police.

If the NDP wants to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, I wonder whether it also wants to withdraw police from Finch Jane in Toronto.

-----

2. Who beat Nazi Germany in WWII, Russia or the West? Here's an original thought for you guys to consider.

Countries don't win wars. Individual soldiers do. (I know that the soldiers are organized but the question about which country won a war is as silly as which straw broke the camel's back.)

Individual soldiers from Russia, America, Canada, Britain and France - to name a few countries - fought the Nazis. After the fact, with hindsight, I would not question the usefulness of any individual soldier's efforts.

Off the top of my head right now, I recall speaking at length to a Russian tank commander and a Canadian navigator about their experiences. In Russia, Poland, France and Canada, I have spoken to sisters and wives of soldiers killed.

Russia or America didn't defeat Hitler. Individuals did.

[ScottSA]

2. Who beat Nazi Germany in WWII, Russia or the West? Here's an original thought for you guys to consider.

Countries don't win wars. Individual soldiers do. (I know that the soldiers are organized but the question about which country won a war is as silly as which straw broke the camel's back.)

Individual soldiers from Russia, America, Canada, Britain and France - to name a few countries - fought the Nazis. After the fact, with hindsight, I would not question the usefulness of any individual soldier's efforts.

Off the top of my head right now, I recall speaking at length to a Russian tank commander and a Canadian navigator about their experiences. In Russia, Poland, France and Canada, I have spoken to sisters and wives of soldiers killed.

Russia or America didn't defeat Hitler. Individuals did.

Well I think it's safe to suggest that the organization of those individual soldiers had some bearing on who won. Beyond that, the organization of war production, the national economies, national politics, and a host of macro factors went into deciding who won. Devoid of all the trappings of the modern state, the war waged by individuals would more have resembled a classic Hobbesian war of all against all, and would have no means of ending itself short of the total genocide of one side or another.