Victory in Europe

[RE.Lee]

Whether wars have reasons is highly debatable, probably best left to another thread, but from what I remember Poland, France, Russia and the USA entered the war because Hitler declared war on them, not the other way around.

Anyway - thank God we're living in a more peaceful period in history (at least from a first world perspective, I guess).

[Aerendar Valandil]

Let me elaborate. I interpreted the statement of 'MadassAlex' as stating that wars seldom result in good things, and therefore, that countries should not get involved in war, ever - that not only starting a war, but also fighting a war is always and invariably bad and therefore not justified. Wars ar always 'justified' beforehand (and sometimes afterward as well) for propaganda an motivational purposes, not all survive the scrutiny of retrospect, certainly not the rather strict scrutiny of modern opinion. However, I think WWII is one example of a war in which the Allies were justified in fighting the war, in one important case willingly getting involved beyond immediate necessity 1), and fighting it beyond immediate containment 2). There were reasons for that. One was that a certain maniac should be deposed. Which was, I guess, a pretty good reason. And it resulted, besides all the mess involved, in deposition of said maniac and liberation of the countries of Western-Europe. A pretty good thing, I think as well.

Do I make sense?



1) The US were physically attackd by Japan, but although Germany formally declared war, Germany was no immediate threat for the US. Still, the US chose to bring the war to Europe (initially Africa) at a point Japan was still unconquered and did so by sending not only materiel but troops as well. Reasons were partially military, but not all.

2) The demand of unconditional surrender made negotiations irrelevant. Ending the war (with Germany or Japan) in an earlier stage was not an option. Perhaps an earlier peace would not have been viable anyway, but that is not relevant: the possibility of a war to the last inch of Tokyo or Berlin was accepted as a possibility, including the resulting war effort and lengthening of the war.

[RE.Lee]

I agree that winning a war for the civilised world is nice. Most of more recent wars involving the USA were justified in exactly the same way, although, just like WW2, those were probably not the only reasons they were fought. If Hitler was just a minor psychopath somewhere in Africa (or if he were considered necessary in a new world order - after all Stalin was no less a psychopath) nobody would have given a damn - but because he was leading a major country he was directly threatening national interests of several countries. Clash of interest was enough to start a war through most of history, luckily, in our time we need some substantial moral outrage as well - thats why we go to war less often, and, once again, thank God for that.

Anyway, I get what your saying - this bit helped a lot:

not all survive the scrutiny of retrospect, certainly not the rather strict scrutiny of modern opinion

(emphasis mine )

[Telnor]

If Hitler was just a minor psychopath somewhere in Africa (or if he were considered necessary in a new world order - after all Stalin was no less a psychopath)

Well their where some people that wanted to keep going and push the Russians all the way back to their borders before the war, but due in large part to the Destruction already caused on a scale that humanity had never before or sense experienced (and hopefully never again) and the fact that the Crazy That started it had been disposed of there was little will or strength left to fight Russia and at the time Russia had a lot of men in Europe.

[Meif]

At least the technology went ahead in huge leaps. And loads of people got work in factories as a result of the war.

VE-Day isn't celebrated in here at all.

[Aerendar Valandil]

Most of more recent wars involving the USA were justified in exactly the same way, although, just like WW2, those were probably not the only reasons they were fought.

I am not convinced that everybody would agree with that. What is typical about WWII is that very few people would disagree, and is therefore an exception. Most other wars have invoked far more doubts and criticism.

If Hitler was just a minor psychopath somewhere in Africa (or if he were considered necessary in a new world order - after all Stalin was no less a psychopath) nobody would have given a damn ...

Sadly, you'r right, I guess. Worse, the West has made alliances with whole busloads of pretty nasty dictators during the Cold War.

Clash of interest was enough to start a war through most of history, luckily, in our time we need some substantial moral outrage as well - thats why we go to war less often, and, once again, thank God for that.

Clash of interest, simple conquest, prestige, loot - pretty good reasons as they were viewed at the time. Not too long ago colonial wars were considered laudable, perfectly acceptable, glorious and prestigeous. Whole countries would not have been remotely like they are now if hunger for land would not have been acceptable as a reason for conquest: The US, Canada, Australia... And in antiquity, one of the few opportunities for social mobility was war and loot the key, both for alledgedly barbaric 'Vikings' as for the 'civilised' Greeks. Wars always had reasons and pretty convincing ones too, the difference between then and now is that those reasons are no longer accepted.

[RE.Lee]

One has to take into account the historical perspective when judging events, though. If the world suddenly shifts to pacifism will WW2 no longer be justified? There were a lot of people in the States who didn't consider Hitlers bellicosity a good enough reason for intervention at the time - if they became more influential after the war would we stop thinking it was justified? Or would we take into account the opinions of the people making the calls in the 40ties?

[Gondarion]

May they never be forgotten.

(though I must say, at risk of disrespecting the memories of those mentioned by The Red Elf, may Twilight be swiftly forgotten!)

[Raukov]

Yeah, pretty sure we can all agree the world would be a better place if everyone forgot Stephenie Meyer existed

[Aerendar Valandil]

One has to take into account the historical perspective when judging events, though. If the world suddenly shifts to pacifism will WW2 no longer be justified? There were a lot of people in the States who didn't consider Hitlers bellicosity a good enough reason for intervention at the time - if they became more influential after the war would we stop thinking it was justified? Or would we take into account the opinions of the people making the calls in the 40ties?

It is the task of historians to judge the past. Of course, that includes taking the context into account. However, the difficult term here is 'justified'. That is a moral judgment, which one can only make within one's own set of morals. In retrospect one can only estimate whether an action would fit into the morals of the time and te morals of a specific person in that time. Any direct judgement by anyone innretrospect always has more to do with the morals of the one who judges than with the morals of the time.

For example: I can say that (the fighting of) WWII (bij the Allies) was justified from my perspective. But my perspective is now. What I can do as well is estimate whether Roosevelt of the general public at that time would consider it justified and why. But I cannot ex-cathedra judfge that WWII will always under any circumstances will be jusiified. I can think that it should, though. But that is an opinion.

The bottom line is that I do not believe that a universal justice exists beyon us. Universal justice exists because we decided it should exist and we decided it should be universal. However, even the definition universal justice will probably change over time, justr as the opinion whether this or that war will be justified or not.

I would assume that if the wold would shift to pacifism (again under an assumtion, namely that that happens as a process in an open society) there would be historians who will have sense enough to see that WWII was fought by the allies in reaction to an aggressor which was not to be stopped by non-aggression. People will(hopefully) be able to judge WWII in its time, in context, and decide thet within its timeframe it was understandable, reasonable end perhaps even justified.

However, if the world would shift to pacifism, the world would be a very peaceful place were physical violence would be absent. And mankind would have made such progression, that they would probably consider the 20th century and WWII barbaric in the sanme sense I consider it barbaric to go sit into a ship filly armed, row/sail to you nearest town of monastry, rob it, maim, kill, rape and enslave, and return to your northern fjord and the dearest wife in triumph, however many understandable underlying reasons there may have been to do that.

[Keith]

One has to take into account the historical perspective when judging events, though. If the world suddenly shifts to pacifism will WW2 no longer be justified? There were a lot of people in the States who didn't consider Hitlers bellicosity a good enough reason for intervention at the time - if they became more influential after the war would we stop thinking it was justified? Or would we take into account the opinions of the people making the calls in the 40ties?

It is the task of historians to judge the past. Of course, that includes taking the context into account. However, the difficult term here is 'justified'. That is a moral judgment, which one can only make within one's own set of morals. In retrospect one can only estimate whether an action would fit into the morals of the time and te morals of a specific person in that time. Any direct judgement by anyone innretrospect always has more to do with the morals of the one who judges than with the morals of the time.

For example: I can say that (the fighting of) WWII (bij the Allies) was justified from my perspective. But my perspective is now. What I can do as well is estimate whether Roosevelt of the general public at that time would consider it justified and why. But I cannot ex-cathedra judfge that WWII will always under any circumstances will be jusiified. I can think that it should, though. But that is an opinion.

The bottom line is that I do not believe that a universal justice exists beyon us. Universal justice exists because we decided it should exist and we decided it should be universal. However, even the definition universal justice will probably change over time, justr as the opinion whether this or that war will be justified or not.

I would assume that if the wold would shift to pacifism (again under an assumtion, namely that that happens as a process in an open society) there would be historians who will have sense enough to see that WWII was fought by the allies in reaction to an aggressor which was not to be stopped by non-aggression. People will(hopefully) be able to judge WWII in its time, in context, and decide thet within its timeframe it was understandable, reasonable end perhaps even justified.

However, if the world would shift to pacifism, the world would be a very peaceful place were physical violence would be absent. And mankind would have made such progression, that they would probably consider the 20th century and WWII barbaric in the sanme sense I consider it barbaric to go sit into a ship filly armed, row/sail to you nearest town of monastry, rob it, maim, kill, rape and enslave, and return to your northern fjord and the dearest wife in triumph, however many understandable underlying reasons there may have been to do that.

Are you really comparing the Allies going to war against germany to vikings pillaging? The comparison is just completely inappropriate. A better example may be a war from an older time. Rather than discussing innocent villages being destroyed. Whether or not they considered the 20th century barbaric is irrelavent to WW2. There is no other conflict in the 20th century that can compare with WW2.

[Aerendar Valandil]

Are you really comparing the Allies going to war against germany to vikings pillaging? The comparison is just completely inappropriate. A better example may be a war from an older time. Rather than discussing innocent villages being destroyed. Whether or not they considered the 20th century barbaric is irrelavent to WW2. There is no other conflict in the 20th century that can compare with WW2.

No. Not at all. Only that in the hypothetical situation that in the far future a pacifist society would come to exist (which inevitably would disapprove ANY violence, even defensive violence, as that is the root ofpacifism) , and would look at a distance to WWII, THEY would think from such diffeent principles as we now, that they probably judge WWII as barbaric as I consider Vikings as barbaric, as I can only understand their motivation with serious effort. Simply because IF a fully pacifist society would come to exist, our (however limited) acceptance of not only violence as a priinciple, but lethal war as a method of solving problems would for the citizens of such a society be totally unfathomable - about as unfathomable as it is for me to think that I would go sit in a boat and start raping and pillaging the local monastry. For ME, NOW answering al call to go to war to fight some just war somewhere is not that unfathomable, if it were only as I was called for military service in '89 or '90. Simply because WWII is not that far away and the morels and concepts of (the Allies) of that period are not that remotely different from mine. For this pacifist in, say , the year 3000 that WOULD be unfathomable without some serious mental effort, because his set of morals would be widely different. Of course, the viking I spoke of would of course be even more unfathomable to him.

I realise I'm getting rather abstract here. But I hope it is remotely clear what I mean. I talk about perspectives here, not comparing sufering or anything.

[Ruerl Khan]

There is no other conflict in the 20th century that can compare with WW2.

Nonsens, you can compare every conflict with WW2, that is what makes WW2 stand out, if it stood alone without comparisons it would'nt be exceptional. As it is, WW1 was very bloody too, and is highly compareable, the scary parts of WW2 is what happened outside the war scene, war crimes always happened, but such an extermination of people behind the scenes, to such a high effect, is unseen prior to that.

Sadly, mankind has always been capeable of creating genocides, and I think we'll continue to do so. The pacifist ideal may be beautifull, but its also impossible.

[Prince Eldarion]

The pacifist ideal may be beautifull, but its also impossible.

It's working in Japan isn't it........I hope.

[Aerendar Valandil]

Is it? Pacifism goes beyond avoidance of war. I would say that Japan is hardly pacifist, as it has armed forces which are prepared for defense. Moreover, it has police forces which have the right to use violence, just like any other nation. Anti-imperial perhaps, anti-militarist prehaps, anti-war, perhaps. But not pacifist.

Admitted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism wiki has a broader definition.

[Andruillius]

if it stood alone without comparisons it would'nt be exceptional.

ex⋅cep⋅tion⋅al
   /ɪkˈsɛpʃənl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ik-sep-shuh-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. forming an exception or rare instance; unusual; extraordinary: The warm weather was exceptional for January.
2. unusually excellent; superior: an exceptional violinist.
3. Education. (of a child)
a. being intellectually gifted.
b. being physically or esp. mentally handicapped to an extent that special schooling is required.

Synonyms:
1. uncommon, singular, strange, unnatural, aberrant, anomalous. See irregular.

[Aerendar Valandil]

I think Ruerl means that the exceptionality of WWII can only be established by comparing it to other wars. To be an exception, there has to be a 'general' group, and to establish its exceptionality, it must by definition be compared. It is relative by definition.

[Keith]

The pacifist ideal may be beautifull, but its also impossible.

It's working in Japan isn't it........I hope.

Japan had sanctions regarding their armed forces put upon them at the end of WW2... none of that was a choice by the Japanese people.

[Musashi]

The Japanese are quite content to continue war by other means.

[Loki17]

The Japanese are quite content to continue war by other means.

Go Go Godzilla!

[Ruerl Khan]

if it stood alone without comparisons it would'nt be exceptional.

ex⋅cep⋅tion⋅al
   /ɪkˈsɛpʃənl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ik-sep-shuh-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. forming an exception or rare instance; unusual; extraordinary: The warm weather was exceptional for January.
2. unusually excellent; superior: an exceptional violinist.
3. Education. (of a child)
a. being intellectually gifted.
b. being physically or esp. mentally handicapped to an extent that special schooling is required.

Synonyms:
1. uncommon, singular, strange, unnatural, aberrant, anomalous. See irregular.

Changes nothing, if something stands alone its the norm, not the exception. Thus WW2 is an exceptional thing, due to being in comparison with other wars and cultural clashes.
1) "for january" as the example standing in comparison to the weather in january at normal.
2) unusually excellent; superior: example of an exceptional violinist is still standing in comparison with other violinists.
etc.

In short, what is the point of that you quote a dictionary that states the same thing as I do? If something stands alone as the only example of a case, then its not exceptional in other regards that its an exception to that there normally are things to compare with. That does'nt make it exceptional as a case, but as a metacase however.

[Keith]

if it stood alone without comparisons it would'nt be exceptional.

ex⋅cep⋅tion⋅al
   /ɪkˈsɛpʃənl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ik-sep-shuh-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. forming an exception or rare instance; unusual; extraordinary: The warm weather was exceptional for January.
2. unusually excellent; superior: an exceptional violinist.
3. Education. (of a child)
a. being intellectually gifted.
b. being physically or esp. mentally handicapped to an extent that special schooling is required.

Synonyms:
1. uncommon, singular, strange, unnatural, aberrant, anomalous. See irregular.

Changes nothing, if something stands alone its the norm, not the exception. Thus WW2 is an exceptional thing, due to being in comparison with other wars and cultural clashes.
1) "for january" as the example standing in comparison to the weather in january at normal.
2) unusually excellent; superior: example of an exceptional violinist is still standing in comparison with other violinists.
etc.

In short, what is the point of that you quote a dictionary that states the same thing as I do? If something stands alone as the only example of a case, then its not exceptional in other regards that its an exception to that there normally are things to compare with. That does'nt make it exceptional as a case, but as a metacase however.

Likewise I thought it would be understood that WW2 stands out for many reasons as different from the rest of the wars/conflicts of the 20th century. Not that it literally cannot/should not be compared to any other war of the period.

[Andruillius]

Censored by the Office of Internal Affairs. Be compliant, citizen!

-Your Benevolent Overlord

[Keith]

Mean things

There is no reason to say that. I don't think he was doing that at all.

[Damnation]

Yay for victory, and bollocks to the naïve imbeciles who disregard that a free Europe is every generation's struggle.