The rights and wrongs of WWI & II



oreiley1

Member
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
12
war

war is always wrong. Suppose we are quite lucky that Europe is at peace. The war in Iraq is so wrong.

Ernest Hemmingway
They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.
 

zoinks

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
86
Re: war

oreiley1 said:
war is always wrong. Suppose we are quite lucky that Europe is at peace. The war in Iraq is so wrong.

Ernest Hemmingway
They wrote in the old days that it is sweet and fitting to die for one's country. But in modern war, there is nothing sweet nor fitting in your dying. You will die like a dog for no good reason.
i agree war is always wrong, but it is inevitable a lot of the time
 

ireland2004

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
316
DevilsAdvocate said:
As http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=12982 seems to be going off-thread, I thought I would start this thread where we can argue the rights and wrongs of the two world wars.

IMO both wars were just (in the context of the period), and were necessary to prevent German hegemony of Europe.
Not wanting to get into a debate on WWII but with regard WWI could you explain?
 

emmet100

Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
27
WWI was unecessary. It was an imperialistic, nationist-driven epic of waste and pointlessness. The last death throws of Europe's old empires that finally brought about dissolution of the German, Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires, and eventually the British empire. It was an unjuts and unecessary war that served only to sow hatred and extreme politics across Europe, eventually to erupt through communism, facism and more war.
 

AnarchistDriver

New member
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Messages
4
WW1

Austria and Hungary were fully justified in their actions to prevent the rogue state of Serbia from engaging in its campaign of state sponsored terror.

The Russians were incredibly stupid in making guarantees to Serbia given that without French backing (not guaranteed) they would inevitably lose; their chances against the Austro Hungarian army alone were not great. Russian and more to the point Czarist interests would have been best served by doing absolutely nothing.

The Germans were justified in backing the Austro Hungarians. The legitimation of state sponsored terrorism in Europe was not acceptable. Further no ally could be abandoned to the Russian knout and jackboot. However German attitudes to Russia are largely irrational. Of course the desire of those who felt that Germany should remain a monarchy in fact as well as name to boost the prestige of that Monarchy and discredit the pacifist social democrats was also a factor. German desires for territorial expansion in the East cannot be ignored but must be largely discounted as a causative factor in the war

The French should have granted the Germans the guarantee of neutrality that they sought on the Franco German border. Their refusal to do this had three causes one rational, one irrational and one a combination of the two. The rational cause was the need to preserve the Czarist state given that the Czarist state was overwhelmingly financed by France. The irrational cause was the desire for Revanche (especially given that Alsace was a German speaking area). The cause which was both rational and irrational was the need to maintain a strong power on the German East. Such a power is inevitable given Russia’s size and population and any reformed Russian state would be more effective than Czarism.

The Ottoman state should have remained neutral while aiding Germany. The Allies were never going to transfer land from a European power to an Asian power. Even if the Ottoman state had gained large amounts of new Turkic speaking subjects following a Russian collapse they could not have administered these territories.

The English should have remained neutral. The desire to prevent the emergence of an even stronger Germany was irrational; Germany could never have mounted an invasion of England, particularly if the English had convinced the French to leave Russia to her fate. My understanding is that England had an entente with France but not with Russia.



AD
I don't need no stinking seat belt.
 

Rocky

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2004
Messages
8,505
I wouldn't say World War I was right or wrong. It was just the inevitable result of the developing Power Structure that existed in Europe at the time and the rapid improvements in military technologically. Effectively too many countries got too strong in Europe all at the same time and Europe wasn't big enough for all of them and the attitudes that existed at the time and what I listed above led to a very long and bloody war. No country can be really blamed for it and there was no one decision that led to war, so I think it's incorrect to look at it in that light.

World War II is a different situation and I would say that Britain and France had no choice, but to stand up to Nazi aggression.
 

Thar an Phail

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
17
ireland2004 said:
DevilsAdvocate said:
As http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=12982 seems to be going off-thread, I thought I would start this thread where we can argue the rights and wrongs of the two world wars.

IMO both wars were just (in the context of the period), and were necessary to prevent German hegemony of Europe.
Not wanting to get into a debate on WWII but with regard WWI could you explain?
If Germany had been allowed to march across Belgium without Britain interveining and crush France and Russia that would establish German hegemony in Europe.

I expect many nationalistically and imperially minded Brits wished to preserve British world hegemony and considered it a cause worth fighting for, imagining a quick British victory.



emmet100 said:
WWI was unecessary. It was an imperialistic, nationist-driven epic of waste and pointlessness. The last death throws of Europe's old empires that finally brought about dissolution of the German, Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires, and eventually the British empire. It was an unjuts and unecessary war that served only to sow hatred and extreme politics across Europe, eventually to erupt through communism, facism and more war.
I agree.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
WW1 is certainly a vastly fuzzier picture in terms of choosing right or wrong than WW2. This was a war between imperial powers and their respective satellites (e.g. Bulgaria/Romania). I would have some sympathy for Serbia therein though as it was defending itself from collective punishment by Austria-Hungary (unless the govt had a hand in killing Archduke Franz Ferdinand which it probably didn't). The Serbian civilian populace did not deserve collective punishment for the actions of the Black Hand terrorist group.

WW2 no question whatsoever. Hitler was a genocidal monster who had to be stopped.
 

zoinks

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
86
FutureTaoiseach said:
WW1 is certainly a vastly fuzzier picture in terms of choosing right or wrong than WW2. This was a war between imperial powers and their respective satellites (e.g. Bulgaria/Romania). I would have some sympathy for Serbia therein though as it was defending itself from collective punishment by Austria-Hungary (unless the govt had a hand in killing Archduke Franz Ferdinand which it probably didn't). The Serbian civilian populace did not deserve collective punishment for the actions of the Black Hand terrorist group.

WW2 no question whatsoever. Hitler was a genocidal monster who had to be stopped.
The USSR and the USA took advantage of their world power after this Conflict. In the documtary on channel 4 "world at war" the orator says that world war 3 already happened, between the 3rd world states, i.e. Vietnam, Ecuador, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Angola, Korea etc. These Wars were basically proxy wars between the USA, Russia and China. The total dead would equal World War 1.
 

hiding behind a poster

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
48,193
Re: war

oreiley1 said:
war is always wrong.

You can't really say that. Supposing a guy comes into your housing estate with a gun. He goes into the first three houses and shoots everyone dead. You're in the fifth house, and you can see whats coming. Surely there comes a point when you're entitled to take out your shotgun and blow him to kingdom come.

Apply the same logic to countries, and you've got lots of justification for war.
 
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
16
ireland2004 said:
Not wanting to get into a debate on WWII but with regard WWI could you explain?
Sorry, it's late, and I've only just got back from holiday. I will try and post an answer in the next day or so.
 

qtman

Active member
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
280
Re: war

hiding behind a poster said:
oreiley1 said:
war is always wrong.

You can't really say that. Supposing a guy comes into your housing estate with a gun. He goes into the first three houses and shoots everyone dead. You're in the fifth house, and you can see whats coming. Surely there comes a point when you're entitled to take out your shotgun and blow him to kingdom come.

Apply the same logic to countries, and you've got lots of justification for war.
Please note that in terms of FG policy, this logic also applies to Travellers.
 

revereie

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
345
Sum fer crissakes please ....

WW1, guys this started essentially with the (con)federation of the German(ish) republic: what ignited the fuse was the growth in telecommunications and rail transports methods of of relatively new infant countries.
 

revereie

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
345
Secondly i think it despicable that that people bandy about terms such as 'black' or 'traveller', 'knacker' etc., etc - so many people here are on about preserving Irish culture and yet are willingly using the 'cáint'.
 

jmcc

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
42,317
zoinks said:
The USSR and the USA took advantage of their world power after this Conflict.
Stalin would probably have attacked Germany anyway. But the British Empire had been fatally wounded in WW1 and the US was beginning to assert itself as the dominant power.

In the documtary on channel 4 "world at war" the orator says that world war 3 already happened, between the 3rd world states,
I thought Ferguson's thesis was patchy especially in identifying the trigger for the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the mid 1980s, the price of oil was cut (if I recall correctly). This had a major knock-on for the SU as it directly affected its hard currency supplies. Couple that with keeping up with the Star Wars (US militarisation of space and advanced weaponry) program, and it became obvious that the SU was screwed.

Regards...jmcc
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
revereie said:
Sum fer crissakes please ....

WW1, guys this started essentially with the (con)federation of the German(ish) republic: what ignited the fuse was the growth in telecommunications and rail transports methods of of relatively new infant countries.
The German Reich was an Empire in 1914 not a Republic!

It's true the trains allowed Mass Mobilisation in a much shorter period of time than heretofore thus lessening the amount of time available to the diplomats to sort something out.

Of course telegrams helped not avert war but speed it up as answers and replys went back and forth.

I think the biggest single factor was Germanys Schifflein (?) Plan which once triggered was almost impossible to turn off in midstream.

It was a crazy plan anyway. It would have been better for Germany to have held the Western border and thrown everything thay had got against Russia.
 

Sidewinder

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
442
Catalpa said:
It would have been better for Germany to have held the Western border and thrown everything they had got against Russia.
Now I'm no expert, but isn't that pretty much exactly what they did in WWII? By the time Barbarossa kicked off the western front was pretty much subdued.

Though that was a close-run thing by all accounts. I think it all came down to supplies in the end? i.e. if the German armies had carried sufficient supplies to winter outside Moscow and Stalingrad they might have won: as it was half their army starve and froze to death, then Kursk finished them off. After Kursk the final outcome of the war was not really in doubt.
 

badinage

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
776
Sidewinder said:
Though that was a close-run thing by all accounts. I think it all came down to supplies in the end? i.e. if the German armies had carried sufficient supplies to winter outside Moscow and Stalingrad they might have won: as it was half their army starve and froze to death, then Kursk finished them off.
Personally I don't think it was a close-run thing. Some argue that had Stalingrad fallen, the lack of supplies up the Volga would have finished the Russian war effort, but I really don't think the Germans had ever a decent chance of conquering an area as vast as the USSR while treating capurted territories the way they were. The only way Barbarossa could have been successful was if the Nazis convinced the defeated peoples that they had come to liberate them from Stalin and that they were the good guys: by treating the locals as subhumans, failing to feed them, they turned it into a war of survival from the Russian point of view, thereby ensuring that the Russians would fight instead of collapse
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top