Just and Un-just Wars

[kfseattle]

An endlessly debatable topic.
Here's info from pollingreport.com.  The poll was done by Gallup.

War.........Just..........Unjust......Not Sure
WWII       90               7                3
Gulf War   66              28               6
Korea       61              30               9
Iraq-now  49              49               2
Vietnam   33              62                5

Interesting, huh?  People are really starting to see Iraq as being unjustified.  This obviously has implications for the 2004 election.  What they are is another story...

I'm surprised to see the Vietnam numbers.  I suppose this might have implications for the Bush campaign attacks on Kerry for protesting the war.  This poll shows that most Americans probably agree with Kerry's position that the war was a "mistake".  

[Gustaf]

Interesting...the issue is, what's our exact defintion of just here? I'd say that the war in Vietnam was perhaps just, but still a mistake that shouldn't have been done. Most wars fought by democracies are just.

[??????????]

It is to early to tell. Sure you can release a poll saying 49-49% of people are split. The other wars you have listed have been over 30+ years and for the most part the emotions of those wars has calmed down. It's to soon to tell though I think in the long run this war will have been worth it.

[ilikeverin]

How could people think that WWI was unjust

(Besides pacificts...)

[PBrunsel]

I do know that Pope Leo was pro-Axis durring World War II.

[ilikeverin]

I do know that Pope Leo was pro-Axis durring World War II.

That'd be Pope Pius... Pope Leo was directly before Pius...

Pius was stupidly neutral.  I have a book which explores many What-Ifs (It's called What-If 2 ), and one of them is what would have happened if Pope Pius had issued a papal decree condemning the Holocaust...

[Brambila]

Give me statistics that were taken during World War II, the Korean War, Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the current second Gulf War, and i'll take them into consideration. Of course people are going to be against the war right now- they are living in it. There was a huge population of anti-war people during Nixon's era, otherwise he wouldn't have ended the war.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pius had actually saved hundreds of thousands of Jews in Rome. He stayed neutral to defend the Church. If he called Hitler his enemy, Hitler would have killed the millions of Catholics in Germany, as he was already doing. During the invasion of Rome, Pius hid thousands of Jews inside the Vatican. He had also organized secret rooms (Like Corrie Tan Boom's) inside convents, monastaries, churches, and schools. Don't forget about the famous movie, The Scarlet and the Red. That was based on a very true story.  

[ilikeverin]

IIRC, Catholics made up 1/3 of the German population at that time.  So, if they all disagreed... then things could happen.  Hitler used the power of intimidation, so if 1/4 of Germany (let's say 1/12 of the Catholics ignored the Pope) declared their opposition to the Holocaust... spread pictures of what was happening, etc., you can safely assume that many people would come to their senses.

Also, consider that some members of the SS and the Wehrmacht (sp?) were Catholics, and that they would probably not kill other Catholics.

[??????????]

How could people think that WWI was unjust

(Besides pacificts...)

World War 1 was unjust. The Austrians had every right to defend themselves against the Serbs after the murder of high leadership.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How could people think that WWI was unjust

(Besides pacificts...)

World War 1 was unjust. The Austrians had every right to defend themselves against the Serbs after the murder of high leadership.

OMG, I actually agree with StatesRights!

At the very least, I would've opposed US entry into WWI.

[Michael Z]

How could people think that WWI was unjust

(Besides pacificts...)

World War 1 was unjust. The Austrians had every right to defend themselves against the Serbs after the murder of high leadership.

OMG, I actually agree with StatesRights!

At the very least, I would've opposed US entry into WWI.

But the Serbs themselves were fighting what they regarded as an unjust occupation of their country... not that I'm taking sides, I'm just trying to be objective about this.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

the point was that it wasn't any of the US's business. I don't agree with the sinking of the Lusitania, but the Germans did give many warnings about it, and it was carrying weapons and ammunition. Not worth getting into the war over.

The worst part though was how Germany was treated after the war. If the Allies hadn't been so brutal, Hitler never would've rose to power and WWII wouldn't have happened. The allies at the time were real jerks who did the wrong thing.

[??????????]

the point was that it wasn't any of the US's business. I don't agree with the sinking of the Lusitania, but the Germans did give many warnings about it, and it was carrying weapons and ammunition. Not worth getting into the war over.

The worst part though was how Germany was treated after the war. If the Allies hadn't been so brutal, Hitler never would've rose to power and WWII wouldn't have happened. The allies at the time were real jerks who did the wrong thing.

Don't forget to include the fact that during the period between 1918 and the rise of the Nazis, French soldiers were known to raid into German territory seizing property and harassing the civilians.

[kfseattle]

You guys who say that beliefs change over time are right, of course.  How we think about invading Iraq 10 years from now, or 30 years, is impossible to tell.

It all depends on what happens over there.  

Right now, on the other hand, there are a lot of people in America, about half, that feel it hasn't been worth it, and that it was unjust.

[??????????]

You guys who say that beliefs change over time are right, of course.  How we think about invading Iraq 10 years from now, or 30 years, is impossible to tell.

It all depends on what happens over there.  

Right now, on the other hand, there are a lot of people in America, about half, that feel it hasn't been worth it, and that it was unjust.

You must remember that from 1941-1944 (early) World War 2 was not seen as a winnable war. Those early years were very dark years indeed for the allies. Things did not start to turn around for us until July/August of 44. We had a major setback at the Ardennes obviously. The press and many in this country were giving FDR grief about the war but he decided the risk was well worth it. President Bush is the same way in this regards. In 50 years I imagine and hope that we will be praising Bush for bringing (some sort) freedom to the Middle East.

[TeePee4Prez]

How could people think that WWI was unjust

(Besides pacificts...)

Being Irish Catholic, I could pretty easily.  This was actually a war for the bankers that lent money to the allied powers.  Kinda similar to the war right now.  Why should I be so passionate about going "Over There"?  I'm essentially aiding people that raped my ancestral homeland.

[ilikeverin]

Uhhhhh... sorry... it seems people took my typo for how I typed it.

I meant II.

Thank you, that is all

[Gustaf]

A few points:

1. The issue in WWI was rather that the Austrian demands were viewed by the Serbs as infringing on their national soverignity (International court, anyone?).

2. I think it's unfair to say that the war didn't turn until 1944. It looked really bad in 1940 and pretty bad during 1941 as well. But the real turning-points came in 1942, Stalingrad, el-Alamein and Midway. After those 3 battles it was all down-hill, so to speak, even though there were still occassional set-backs.

[The Dowager Mod]

The U.S. had no bussiness being involved in WWI.

[Gustaf]

I don't know about that...Zimmerman's telegram? Lusitania? The resumation of submarine warfare?

[The Dowager Mod]

The germans took out newspaper ads warning about the lusitania which was carrying arms it turns out.
and the germans had no choice but to resume unrestricted sub warfare, the blockade was starving them.
my point about U.S. involvement is that we were simply helping england and france retain their colonial systems.

[Gustaf]

The germans took out newspaper ads warning about the lusitania which was carrying arms it turns out.
and the germans had no choice but to resume unrestricted sub warfare, the blockade was starving them.
my point about U.S. involvement is that we were simply helping england and france retain their colonial systems.

It was a bad war, I'll give you that. I'm not so sure about helping them to reatin their colonial systems...it helped break up the central powers' empires.

[The Dowager Mod]

which the allies proceeded to carve up for themselves.

[??????????]

The germans took out newspaper ads warning about the lusitania which was carrying arms it turns out.
and the germans had no choice but to resume unrestricted sub warfare, the blockade was starving them.
my point about U.S. involvement is that we were simply helping england and france retain their colonial systems.

Looking back I would say that the freeing of these colonial states, especially in Africa and the Middle East was a bad thing.