Yes, I’d be against fighting “the Germans” but not necessarily against fighting any Germans. German forces crossing or attempting to cross the Channel would, of course, have no possible intent but murder and destruction of property and would, therefore, be fair game. By extension, any motions on the coast of France or Belgium by German forces that clearly indicated build-up for invasion may also be fair game. But this line of reasoning cannot be extended very far without losing a credible connection between cause and effect.
Because conscription shows just how morally bankrupt the whole game was. It’s not about “keeping Britain safe”, it’s about empire building and competition between the Royal Houses, the Vatican, and the up-and-coming ultra-wealthy bankers and industrialists for control over Europe. Orthodox history aside, nothing really changed after the advent of democracy in Europe during the late 18th century except that mass politics and populism became more powerful than ever before.
Dresden.
It’s useless and childish.
This is like asking which gang-lord I’d rather live under. Neither man had any moral virtue whatever, both were bent on their own political advancement at any cost. The latter simply has much more quotable quotes than the former. Talk is cheap.
It’s up to the Germans to deal with their own problems. Britain and certainly the United States had no business interfering. Yes, the Germans “defeated” a bunch of countries in the beginning but the Nazi economy had already sowed the seeds of its own destruction. The Nazis were going to fail no matter what we did because they couldn’t even afford to feed their own people. This is the true reason for all the genocide and concentration camps… what else do you do with starving people? Just shoot them or burn them and you have fewer mouths to feed.
Hitler was less diplomatic and more forthright in expressing his monstrous intentions than your average Prime Minister but I don’t think Hitler was any more self-seeking than Churchill or Roosevelt.
It wouldn’t have lasted long. Any aggressive, totalitarian, socialist system is destined to be short-lived.
The victims of the collateral damage do indeed have a right to retributive damage, but a significant part of the liability should fall on Hitler since he started the whole mess. However I assume that families of most German civilians understood the necessety of British military operations, so I think very few of them would have sought retribution. Regardless they wouldn’t be successful in getting that retribution since I would defend myself, and I assume most British citizens would also defend themselves and help me defend myself.
This backwards liability idea is the worst, it can excuse everyone for anything. You’re liable for murder as long as you were involved in it, whether by giving the orders or directly engaging in it. No one else. But since by defending yourself (I am guessing even from court proceedings), you take no personal responsiblity for killing people you decided to kill, what makes you worthy to carry the title of man? I mean you’re essentially saying those people you killed or maimed are completely worthless since you think their suffering was necessary- and that they deserve nothing in return.
You ask me all these questions without providing any realistic answers to mine. How can you beat thugs like Hitler or the emperor of Japan, or Jihad terrorists without collateral damage? Will you really allow yourself, your family, your nation to be slaughtered in order to be consistent with NAP?
Well you haven’t laid out the case as to why collateral damage was necessary to stop people like Hitler or the emperor of Japan, you’ve just expected that to be taken for granted. I, for example, don’t buy the line that nuking Japanese citizens was necessary to end the war with Japan, or that the Soviets really needed to capture Berlin so they can stick a flag up there(with so much unnecessary rape and death on the way) when the nazi army threat was really neutralized at that point.
Maybe you can give more specific and detailed examples to help understand your position instead of " I believe X amount of German citizens had to die or else the nazi’s take over the world"- that’s not convincing enough.
I don’t see why you’d lump in this vague term of “jihad terrorists” into the same category as Germany and Japan from WW2. In the case of United States/Israel vs. various peoples, the former has never been interested in peace.
I agree with you that Hiroshima or the conquest of Berlin by the Soviets were probably unnecessary. However I’d like you to present a scenario in which United States could punish the Japanese emperer and make him stop his military actions without collateral damage. Also please show me a realistic scenario in which the European nations could have defeated Hitler without collateral damage while remembering that Hitler was keen on contiuing the holocaust for other nations after he finished withJews, so time was a pressing matter.
You ask me all these questions without providing any realistic answers to mine. How can you beat thugs like Hitler or the emperor of Japan, or Jihad terrorists without collateral damage? Will you really allow yourself, your family, your nation to be slaughtered in order to be consistent with NAP?
You don’t have to beat them. You just avoid provacative acts and they leave you alone. And than the whole problem of collateral damage disappears. Britain could have avoided war with Germany by simply not declaring war on them when it invaded Poland. Or by accepting Hitler’s terms of peace of giving the Germans a free hand in Europe, after the fall of France. America could’ve avoided war with Japan by not restricting oil exports from the Philippines to Japan, or supporting Chinese guerilla resistance against the Japaneses. They could’ve also made peace ov favourable terms after the battle of Midway. The U.S. and many of its colonies now can avoid future terrorist attacks by adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy and avoiding any addition blowback from the resentment that occupying and interfering in the affairs of other nations naturally brings.
You see, its really easy to protect yourself and your family if you mind your own business and carefully pick your battles. K now, can you answer my question?
You assume that dictators will leave you alone once you stop all interference with their plans. It is wrong. The plans of these dictators are usually to conquer as much land as possible, and that will usually include your land.
It is immoral to let other people suffer from the dictator when you can help. Leaving Japanese to continue slaughter Chinese, or letting the Germans slaughter Jews and enslave the rest of Europe is immoral. Every European with a little bit of common sense was happy when United States and Britain intervened to stop Hitler. If you told Europeans at that time that your reason for not joining forces in order to end the evil Hitler regime is to avoid collateral damage, they would think you are egotistical and scared, not noble as you probably think yourself to be.
This is true of all rulers. All States are in a constant state of contention for power, people, territory and natural resources. “Dictators” are not remarkable in this regard.
But the British and American governments could not, of their own resources, help. They could only coerce their citizens to “help.”
You’ve fairly well summarized how the popular politics of the day worked. Since when has popular politics ever had anything to do with reality?
‘However I’d like you to present a scenario in which United States could punish the Japanese emperer and make him stop his military actions without collateral damage.’
It would be hilarious for any American politician to try and shame the Japanese Emperor for his pre-WWII actions.
Here is a quote from a journalist during the Filipino "insurrection’ following the Spanish-American war:
‘There is no use in mincing words…If we decide to stay, we must bury all qualms and scruples about Weylerian cruelty, the consent of the governed, etc., and stay. We exterminated the American Indians, and I guess most of us are proud of it, or, at least, believe the end justified the means; and we must have no scruples about exterminating this other race standing in the way of progress and enlightenment, if it is necessary.’
So Eugene is among good company for he is merely echoing what Americans minds were saying 100 years ago. How little the minds of Americans have changed in 100 years and how depressing.
Let’s very briefly compare the cost of struggle vs. the costs of surrender by looking at France in WWI vs. France in WWII
WWI 1914-1918 (in which they received considerable support on the Western Front from their allies):
Killed: c. 4.5% of the French population
Other injured: c. 11% of the French population
Monetary cost: c. 200% of 1914 GDP
WWII era killed, excluding those who died as a result of fighting against the Germans: c. 0.5% of French Population
Thus, about 9 times as many French died fighting in WWI than died under German occupation in WWII (as a percentage of population) - not to mention the vast monetary cost. These wars were fought between fairly similar states for dominance - the real loser is the common man, who is sent to fight and die (or otherwise enslaved and stolen from) so that his overlords just may preserve their positions. For how long would Hitler’s regime last in France, anyway? 1000 years? The German economy essentially collapsed within a decade of him taking power - the more power he tried to take in the short-term, the more he destroyed his long-term stability.
Also, to think that the Germans could have posed any threat to the USA is ludicrous.
If I were a European in the time of Hitler’s reign, and I mean any European, including Jew, Briton, German, French, Polak, etc… I would be willing to accept a chance of 1 to 50 that I might be killed in a raid by the allies but I would prefer that over having to fight Hitler alone. An organized army such as the army of the United States is far more equipped to fight Hitler’s army than gureilla. I have no doubt that American intervention brought peace and prosperty much faster than what would have happened without this intervention. A good example is the Soviet control of eastern Europe. The Soviets have controlled it for half a century, and they completely ruined the economy. The Nazis would have done worse things, they would have anihilated half of the population and physically enslaved the other half. To see American intervention as something unwelcomed is just inhumane.
The Japanese argument for invading China was to defeat the Kai Shek regime and unify East Asia against western imperialism. Where have I heard that one before?
Vietnam and Middle Eastern insurrectionism and terrorism show how ineffective organized armies have become. You’re arguing that progress and technology make defeat more likely for the oppressed when that is simply not the case if you look at recent history.
The fact is that collateral damage creates more enemies than the warring kills. Take the predator drone attack deaths–a third of which have been civilians so far. They are creating enemies out the families of the hundreds of innocent people the US government has killed so wantonly. Those enemies are more than justified to take their revenge on an invading force. Collateral damage creates a cycle of violence. We appeased the German and Japanese civilians by dashing to the printing press and rebuilding their countries but that’s not going to work this time.
I have no words.