Was WWII the only major war under whih there was a clear good side and bad side?

[dead0man]

Well like I said, the definition of "violence" is subjective. To someone it could mean any act of physical force against anything, to someone else it could mean "an act of painful force with a nondefensive purpose".

If they wanted to hold a narrow and incomplete definition that would be fine, but they are going to have a hard time discussing it with people that don't know of their shortcomings.

[King]

The Allies were the good side.  No debate.  Soviets were bad, but the Soviets were never truly on the Allies side.  

If Hitler hadn't broken the Non-Aggression Pact and continued to focus on the Western Front, I think they would've eventually joined the Axis powers.  And even if he still waged war against them, if the Soviet Union was powerful enough at the time to destroy Germany on its own, it would have never sought such alliances.  They  only cared about themselves.  

Had the Russian atomic bomb been ready to go in 1941, I have no doubt in my mind Stalin would've flattened Berlin and the German countryside and called it a day.  The future of France, Poland, Italy, and the Japanese Empire was of no concern to him.

Huh? Why would Stalin would stop there rather than march right on to the Atlantic.

Stalin was reactionary.  I know it seems obvious that he would he want to conquer the world, but he was a very unpredictable man.  And when it came to actual unprovoked aggression, relatively slow in his tactfulness (compared to, say, Khrushchev).  And as mentioned earlier in the thread, nobody was prepared to fight another war immediately after ending WWII.

I think he would've destroyed Germany, basked in the victory, taken great pride in the rest of the world fearing him, and waited way too long to press on. Thus, allowing the Manhattan Project to be completed and the US to catch up. And the Cold War would begin anyway, but not because of the USSR stepping up and challenging the US's new found dominance.  Instead, it would be the US challenging the Russians.

[I left.]

Well the usual candidates have provided absurd commentary (Rochambeau, Libertas....primarily).

To Mechaman: It may be a logical view that you hold....and it's isn't wrong in theory that the United States government should primarily protect American interests.....but there are cases where an injustice outside our borders is so great that it is our duty to do whatever is necessary to defeat the injustice...in my opinion at least.

Think about the consequences if Hitler had stayed in power and continued his regime of terror. Do you think Europe would be a nice place now? Do you think the world would be a nice place now?

Saying that you aren't willing to sacrifice American lives for a "European problem" is all well and good, but to me that is a declaration that an American life is worth more than one elsewhere. I can't accept that line of thinking. To prevent millions and millions of further deaths...the only responsible and moral response was indeed to fight in the war.

[Sibboleth]

Stalin was reactionary.  I know it seems obvious that he would he want to conquer the world, but he was a very unpredictable man.

It might seem obvious but is basically untrue. The problem is that we have a Hitler complex when it comes to thinking about evil dictators; you know, if someone is an evil dictator than that someone must want to conquer the world, because Hitler did and he is the archetype of evil dictators as far as most of us are concerned. In reality, what the Soviet Union wanted was security. The man was extremely paranoid rather than being a meglomaniac.

[Sibboleth]

The deeds of Adolf Hitler's Germany may have been some of the most disgusting crimes against humanity ever in the history of mankind, but those weren't American Jews, those weren't American gays, those weren't American Catholics, those weren't American gypsies, those weren't American people being rounded up wholesale and being thrown into concentration camps, therefore we had no moral or ethical obligation to get ourselves involved in the War in Europe.

In practice that means that you think that the lives of non-Americans are worthless. Which, by the way, makes your opinions worthless.

At the risk of sounding like a heartless bastard, we had a moral obligation to sit back, do nothing, and watch as millions of non-American lives were extinguished in the hell known as war.

Then you have a very twisted sense of morality and probably need mental help.

[dialectical fetishist]

I'm sorry dead0man, but two wrongs don't make a right.

[dead0man]

Well the second one can if it stops a worse wrong from continuing. 

Again, a man is beating another man to death.  You've tried talking to him, but he ignores you.  You, as a human, would have the duty to make it stop.  Violence may be your only option.  What if the one getting beat to death is a dog?  A Woman?  A child?

[dialectical fetishist]

Well the second one can if it stops a worse wrong from continuing. 

Again, a man is beating another man to death.  You've tried talking to him, but he ignores you.  You, as a human, would have the duty to make it stop.  Violence may be your only option.  What if the one getting beat to death is a dog?  A Woman?  A child?

No, there is no duty for anything.

[I left.]

Well the second one can if it stops a worse wrong from continuing. 

Again, a man is beating another man to death.  You've tried talking to him, but he ignores you.  You, as a human, would have the duty to make it stop.  Violence may be your only option.  What if the one getting beat to death is a dog?  A Woman?  A child?

No, there is no duty for anything.

Actually there is a legal duty in many countries....but I oppose them naturally.

Regardless, you do actually have a moral duty, and I have no respect for people that think they can just ignore problems before their own eyes and act like it's not immoral at all to go about their business.

[dialectical fetishist]

Well the second one can if it stops a worse wrong from continuing. 

Again, a man is beating another man to death.  You've tried talking to him, but he ignores you.  You, as a human, would have the duty to make it stop.  Violence may be your only option.  What if the one getting beat to death is a dog?  A Woman?  A child?

No, there is no duty for anything.

Actually there is a legal duty in many countries....but I oppose them naturally.

Regardless, you do actually have a moral duty, and I have no respect for people that think they can just ignore problems before their own eyes and act like it's not immoral at all to go about their business.

It would all depend on what your own beliefs are. For a Quaker, they would have a duty not to intervene.

[dead0man]

That's great for full on hard core pacifists, but that's a very small percentage of the population.  For the rest of us, we have a duty to protect other, weaker beings when we have the ability to do it.  Sure, sometimes you won't be able to go help the victim being beaten in the street because you won't be able to stop the attack for whatever reason, but even then, a good human would at least try.  I'm not suggesting a person should risk his life to save an abused dog, but maybe to save a bus full of hijacked toddlers.

[King]

Stalin was reactionary.  I know it seems obvious that he would he want to conquer the world, but he was a very unpredictable man.

It might seem obvious but is basically untrue. The problem is that we have a Hitler complex when it comes to thinking about evil dictators; you know, if someone is an evil dictator than that someone must want to conquer the world, because Hitler did and he is the archetype of evil dictators as far as most of us are concerned. In reality, what the Soviet Union wanted was security. The man was extremely paranoid rather than being a meglomaniac.

I agree. +1

[SPC]

I don't think even WWII would meet that definition, what with Stalin, Tito, Mao, and Chiang being on the Allied side, and the horrific civilian bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, among other cities.

Morality is relative, and progresses slowly along the march of history.

The question was whether there was a clear good and bad side. Clearly both sides of WWII were evil, it was merely a matter of degree between the Axis and the Allies.

Right, hence "relative."  Morality progresses by matters of degrees, not by universal decree.  A perfect morality could not even be conceived by modern humans, and is probably hundreds of years off into the future.

I wasn't asking for perfection. A simple refusal to bomb civilians, violate civil liberties at home, use conscription, or provide aid to bloodthirsty regimes would be sufficient.

Sufficient enough for us to be annihilated, indeed.

What part of that would ensure our annihilation? Not sending Japanese-Americans to concentration camps?! Not killing innocent Germans and Japanese? Not enslaving million of Americans, 400,000 of whom came back in a box?! Not sending 2 million Russian refugees to be slaughtered?

The deeds of Adolf Hitler's Germany may have been some of the most disgusting crimes against humanity ever in the history of mankind, but those weren't American Jews, those weren't American gays, those weren't American Catholics, those weren't American gypsies, those weren't American people being rounded up wholesale and being thrown into concentration camps, therefore we had no moral or ethical obligation to get ourselves involved in the War in Europe.

In practice that means that you think that the lives of non-Americans are worthless. Which, by the way, makes your opinions worthless.

At the risk of sounding like a heartless bastard, we had a moral obligation to sit back, do nothing, and watch as millions of non-American lives were extinguished in the hell known as war.

Then you have a very twisted sense of morality and probably need mental help.

So the lives of non-Americans are so valuable that 400,000 Americans have to be sent to die to protect them?

[N.i.K.]

No obviously, as you are forgetting the Civil War and numerous others.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

"Socialism in one country"

[dialectical fetishist]

No obviously, as you are forgetting the Civil War and numerous others.

Sorry NiK, but that one isn't either. Lincoln was a racist and he crushed regionalism in the US.

[Deldem]

No obviously, as you are forgetting the Civil War and numerous others.

Sorry NiK, but that one isn't either. Lincoln was a racist and he crushed regionalism in the US.

But he didn't want to enslave people. Say what you like about Lincoln's beliefs on equality, but he did not want slavery- and the South seceded under the threat of ending slavery.

Besides, eliminating strong state's rights was one of the main reasons for the Constitution. Remember how well state's rights worked under the Articles of Confederation? Oh yeah, they consistently undermined one another and nearly destroyed the nation before it had begun. Remember how well it worked in the CSA? Oh yeah, not at all- in fact, it greatly contributed to their defeat.

Look, we all know the real reason the South seceded was slavery, which they would justify partly by state's rights. So no, there is no doubt, the North was clearly the better side. Sure, they were bigots, but they didn't want to own other human beings, and that fact alone is enough to give them the moral high ground.

[Sibboleth]

So the lives of non-Americans are so valuable that 400,000 Americans have to be sent to die to protect them?

I would like you to know that you are beyond all forms of parody.

[SPC]

So the lives of non-Americans are so valuable that 400,000 Americans have to be sent to die to protect them?

I would like you to know that you are beyond all forms of parody.

You didn't answer the inherent contradiction of killing people to save lives.

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

So the lives of non-Americans are so valuable that 400,000 Americans have to be sent to die to protect them?

I would like you to know that you are beyond all forms of parody.

You didn't answer the inherent contradiction of killing people to save lives.

And you aren't answering to the fact that you think that American lives are worth more than others'. You are basically saying that it wasn't worth it to go to war in Europe (which was almost entirely unpreventable) to save millions of lives, at the cost thousands of American soldiers. Don't get me wrong, I don't want any American to die, but without the American offensive, the Germans would have been able to hold the WWII Western Front. This would have led to more than just the 400,000 american deaths.

[SPC]

So the lives of non-Americans are so valuable that 400,000 Americans have to be sent to die to protect them?

I would like you to know that you are beyond all forms of parody.

You didn't answer the inherent contradiction of killing people to save lives.

And you aren't answering to the fact that you think that American lives are worth more than others'. You are basically saying that it wasn't worth it to go to war in Europe (which was almost entirely unpreventable) to save millions of lives, at the cost thousands of American soldiers. Don't get me wrong, I don't want any American to die, but without the American offensive, the Germans would have been able to hold the WWII Western Front. This would have led to more than just the 400,000 american deaths.

I didn't say that the lives of Americans are worth more than foreigners. Is it ethical to push someone in front of a bus to prevent the bus from crashing into something else?

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

So the lives of non-Americans are so valuable that 400,000 Americans have to be sent to die to protect them?

I would like you to know that you are beyond all forms of parody.

You didn't answer the inherent contradiction of killing people to save lives.

And you aren't answering to the fact that you think that American lives are worth more than others'. You are basically saying that it wasn't worth it to go to war in Europe (which was almost entirely unpreventable) to save millions of lives, at the cost thousands of American soldiers. Don't get me wrong, I don't want any American to die, but without the American offensive, the Germans would have been able to hold the WWII Western Front. This would have led to more than just the 400,000 american deaths.

I didn't say that the lives of Americans are worth more than foreigners. Is it ethical to push someone in front of a bus to prevent the bus from crashing into something else?

Is it the right thing to do to build a fence in front of a bus full of people about to roll off a cliff even if there is a risk that the workers will be run over? If there are more people in the bus, then I'd say yes.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

So the lives of non-Americans are so valuable that 400,000 Americans have to be sent to die to protect them?

I would like you to know that you are beyond all forms of parody.

You didn't answer the inherent contradiction of killing people to save lives.

And you aren't answering to the fact that you think that American lives are worth more than others'. You are basically saying that it wasn't worth it to go to war in Europe (which was almost entirely unpreventable) to save millions of lives, at the cost thousands of American soldiers. Don't get me wrong, I don't want any American to die, but without the American offensive, the Germans would have been able to hold the WWII Western Front. This would have led to more than just the 400,000 american deaths.

I didn't say that the lives of Americans are worth more than foreigners. Is it ethical to push someone in front of a bus to prevent the bus from crashing into something else?

Yes.

[Senator Libertas]

So the lives of non-Americans are so valuable that 400,000 Americans have to be sent to die to protect them?

I would like you to know that you are beyond all forms of parody.

You didn't answer the inherent contradiction of killing people to save lives.

And you aren't answering to the fact that you think that American lives are worth more than others'. You are basically saying that it wasn't worth it to go to war in Europe (which was almost entirely unpreventable) to save millions of lives, at the cost thousands of American soldiers. Don't get me wrong, I don't want any American to die, but without the American offensive, the Germans would have been able to hold the WWII Western Front. This would have led to more than just the 400,000 american deaths.

I didn't say that the lives of Americans are worth more than foreigners. Is it ethical to push someone in front of a bus to prevent the bus from crashing into something else?

Yes.

No it's not.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

So the lives of non-Americans are so valuable that 400,000 Americans have to be sent to die to protect them?

I would like you to know that you are beyond all forms of parody.

You didn't answer the inherent contradiction of killing people to save lives.

And you aren't answering to the fact that you think that American lives are worth more than others'. You are basically saying that it wasn't worth it to go to war in Europe (which was almost entirely unpreventable) to save millions of lives, at the cost thousands of American soldiers. Don't get me wrong, I don't want any American to die, but without the American offensive, the Germans would have been able to hold the WWII Western Front. This would have led to more than just the 400,000 american deaths.

I didn't say that the lives of Americans are worth more than foreigners. Is it ethical to push someone in front of a bus to prevent the bus from crashing into something else?

Yes.

No it's not.

A deontological argument? I don't think that that's compatible with the teachings of your church, Libertas.