Wars: When are they justified?

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

A war is a violent conflict between two or more social entities. In this case I'm referring to nations. Often these wars are extremely destructive and result in huge number's of casualties, from armed forces and civilians. World War 2 alone killed 60-72 million people, World War 1 killed 20 million people. Is instigating this sort of violence ever morally acceptable?

Then the after affects of wars, environmental pollution, famine, diseases from the destruction of health care infrastructure are extremely damaging. Then there is the threat of a nuclear war that accompanies conventional warfare. If two sides are fighting and one wants a quick victory, what's to stop them from launching nuclear missiles? Overall, wars are shaping up to be absolutely horrible in almost every regard.

So the question is: When are wars justified (apart from self-defence)?

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

In my humble opinion, wars are never justified. The near-innumerable amount of wars in history have been waged over the following:

• Land
• Religion
• Resources
• Politics
• General country predicaments (i.e Extermination via Hitler, The Great Leap Forward by Mao Zedong)
• Self-Defence, in some cases, although such option has already been overturned.

Most of these options (Land, Politics, Religion, Resources, General predicaments) are out of humans' destructive nature.
How? Well, looking at it from my perspective, politics, land, and Religion are mere disagreements between countries, thus wars may be waged, but it is certainly not destined to occur. Religion also includes wanting to convert the minds of other humans to their original beliefs, however it can be wielded to disagree with another country's Religion (example: Israel and surround Middle Eastern countries).
Resources, this is simply an act of a country's will to survive, having to wage war and kill over gaining resources for the country. Then again, it may whittle down to the selfish instinct of humans to continue on. Without their country, the leaders of -Country X- would not have their hold in political authority. Thus, to increase their resources, keep their country surviving, and overall keep them in power, they invade -Country Y- in an attempt to conquer -Country Y- and gain additional resources.

War can also be played by the media and propaganda. Mao Zedong, during the Great Leap Forward, banned books from his country and proceeded to invade Tibet in order to throw out the apparent "Western influence" there. He threw out propaganda among his people to make Western culture and politics look evil. Simple antiestablishmentarianism on Mao's part.

As for the "murder of people" proportion of war, that comes down to the morals of the country and overall the morals of the person. The general populace would probably note killing as morally wrong, as numerous people do. Killing people for the reasons mentioned above would be considered 'immoral' as well.

Spoiler

Exclude the extremists of Religion.

 

[BSP]

Firstly, I think it would a great challenge to come up with criteria to make declaring war justified (minus self-defence). Not only would that criteria be hard to make, but it will be subjective as well. Who's right is it to decide when something is worth causing the deaths of millions of people? Personally, I don't think anyone has the right to decide that.

We have had many wars in history, and we know that they cause a multitude of losses. Millions of deaths for both sides occur, the amount of money spent financing the war, and even entire countries or areas can be left in ruins. These are just a few of the side-effects of war, but they and more happen every single time a war breaks out. Even wars that result in draws take a huge toll on a country's resources.

So, knowing that war will cause all of the above mentioned losses, I don't think it's ever justifiable outside of self-defence. In most of the wars in history, countries always try to avoid being the agressor, because agression is never a good justification for war (and you look like the bad guy, which is not a good thing). Two examples are the allies of WWII and the U.S. Civil War. WWI's innitiative was to stop Hitler's domination of Europe. The U.S. Civil war's purpose was to protect the Union. Countries try to avoid being the ones to declare war since they also know that there's no agreed upon justification.

So, basically, war is usually waged for the reasons that Omnicron listed. It becomes a matter of opinion when decided which situation justifies war, but I (and most people) do not think any of them are worth the losses of war. Religion and Politics are subjective in nature, so that rules them out for worthy reasons. Resources and Land? Well, ask the question, "Are you willing to sacrifice a substantial amount of funds, people, time, and more for land/more resources?" The viability of those two potential reasons comes down to the morality of the person, but they are still not good justifications for war IMO.

 

[Aesir]

In my humble opinion, wars are never justified.

What about World War 2? There were reasons to fight back Nazi Germany.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

What about World War 2? There were reasons to fight back Nazi Germany.

Indeed!

If your country is being attacked, then wouldn't it be at least reasonable to fend the attackers off? Wouldn't it be justified? What if the attackers were going to oppress all the civilians or murder hundreds of thousands of them? What if they were going to destroy whole cities in bombing raids, wouldn't it be justified to try and stop the bombing through military means?

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Indeed!

If your country is being attacked, then wouldn't it be at least reasonable to fend the attackers off? Wouldn't it be justified? What if the attackers were going to oppress all the civilians or murder hundreds of thousands of them? What if they were going to destroy whole cities in bombing raids, wouldn't it be justified to try and stop the bombing through military means?

Is that not self-defence? If your country is under assault and you retaliate in order to fend the opponents off?

What about World War 2? There were reasons to fight back Nazi Germany.

There are two ways to look at it: the view of the Allies and the view of the Axis Powers.
In the eyes of the Axis Powers, they only fought to conquer the large majority of Europe and slaughter innocent Jewish people, homosexuals, Polish people, gypsies, et cetera. During the invasion of Europe, the followers of the Nazi regime, through propaganda, were led to believe that what they were doing or encouraging was justifiable. When the Allies attacked in defence of England, I am quite sure that Nazi Germany felt as though the Allies were attacking against their campaign.

What about the use of atomic weapons upon the unprepared cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was that truly justified, after all of the awful suffering it caused?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Is that not self-defence? If your country is under assault and you retaliate in order to fend the opponents off?

Exactly, would that be justified?

And what if your ally was attacked, would it be justified to aid your ally? I'm not sure on this one though. I don't really think there is a clear cut answer.

 

[Aesir]

There are two ways to look at it: the view of the Allies and the view of the Axis Powers.
In the eyes of the Axis Powers, they only fought to conquer the large majority of Europe and slaughter innocent Jewish people, homosexuals, Polish people, gypsies, et cetera. During the invasion of Europe, the followers of the Nazi regime, through propaganda, were led to believe that what they were doing or encouraging was justifiable. When the Allies attacked in defence of England, I am quite sure that Nazi Germany felt as though the Allies were attacking against their campaign.

Stopping Nazi Germany I think would be a top priority.

What about the use of atomic weapons upon the unprepared cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was that truly justified, after all of the awful suffering it caused?

I guess you could ask your self which is worse? an atomic bomb? or incendiary bombs?

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

So the question is: When are wars justified (apart from self-defence)?

Exactly, would that be justified?

I don't understand this, I thought you previously removed the option of self-defence?

I'm just attempting to clarify.

Stopping Nazi Germany I think would be a top priority.

I'm looking at it from the viewpoint of the Axis Powers; they thought what they were doing was justifiable.
That statement seems irrelevant to what I said in that quote.

I guess you could ask your self which is worse? an atomic bomb? or incendiary bombs?

Atomic weapons, obviously enough, but I'm asking whether that was justifiable or not. To drop atomic weapons onto two cities, kill 150,000+ innocent people, along with innumerable amounts of other innocents after that due to terrible mutations/pestilence caused by radioactivity.
Incendiary bombs simply burn and kill people. Atomic bombs incinerate entire areas, send winds at 600+mph, and worst of all, spread deadly radioactive fallout for miles upon miles, of which lasts for many years.

 

[Sieguest]

I'm looking at it from the viewpoint of the Axis Powers; they thought what they were doing was justifiable.

Considering the prime aggressor, Germany, was in an economic slump before WWII, and how War can help an economy via providing wartime jobs and other such things. One could say that to help the German people was a reason. If I remember correctly, Germany's allies also were in some economic trouble.

Atomic weapons, obviously enough, but I'm asking whether that was justifiable or not. To drop atomic weapons onto two cities, kill 150,000+ innocent people, along with innumerable amounts of other innocents after that due to terrible mutations/pestilence caused by radioactivity.
Incendiary bombs simply burn and kill people. Atomic bombs incinerate entire areas, send winds at 600+mph, and worst of all, spread deadly radioactive fallout for miles upon miles, of which lasts for many years.

I see how that using atomic weapons could be overkill, I believe that it was just an intimidation measure used by the United States to scare the Japanese.

 

[Deleted member]

Wars are extremely difficult if not near impossible to justify. However, I can see it being justified if nations want to stop a nation from becoming a supreme ruler of the world or at least continent (World War II was somewhat justifiable becuse the Germans were attempting to take over all of Europe and possibly the world itself, but that isn't really an example).

 

[Aesir]

I'm looking at it from the viewpoint of the Axis Powers; they thought what they were doing was justifiable.
That statement seems irrelevant to what I said in that quote.

I think most rational thinking people would view the axis as an evil worth going to war with. We can romanticize their side all we want, but the fact of the matter is their actions are not justifiable.

Atomic weapons, obviously enough, but I'm asking whether that was justifiable or not. To drop atomic weapons onto two cities, kill 150,000+ innocent people, along with innumerable amounts of other innocents after that due to terrible mutations/pestilence caused by radioactivity.
Incendiary bombs simply burn and kill people. Atomic bombs incinerate entire areas, send winds at 600+mph, and worst of all, spread deadly radioactive fallout for miles upon miles, of which lasts for many years.

I'm not disagreeing with that, but I'm saying given the architecture of those Japanese cities the Atomic bomb was kind of over kill as incendiary bombs would have demolished those cities.

There's two sides to the argument about using Atomic Weapons, or not to use atomic weapons. Most people believe if we had not dropped the bombs we would have faced more American Causalities. However that fails to take into account that we were demolishing the Japanese army's and they probably would have surrendered without the dropping of the bombs.

 

[Jam Stunna]

The use of the atomic bombs also served the purpose of demonstrating to the Russians that we had a new weapon, as people on both sides were anticipating the Cold War.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Ah, I enjoy a good debate.

Considering the prime aggressor, Germany, was in an economic slump before WWII, and how War can help an economy via providing wartime jobs and other such things. One could say that to help the German people was a reason. If I remember correctly, Germany's allies also were in some economic trouble.

I can agree with that fact; I've lost that side. However, I would like to know why their systematic slaughtering of 6+ million people was viewed as justifiable in their eyes. It seems that they believed that the Jewish people, and others that perished in the Holocaust, were inferior to them. From that standpoint, I can say that the slaughtering of that many people over simple issues of superiority and inferiority is completely unjustifiable. There is no argument against me that the Holocaust was justifiable.

There's two sides to the argument about using Atomic Weapons, or not to use atomic weapons. Most people believe if we had not dropped the bombs we would have faced more American Causalities. However that fails to take into account that we were demolishing the Japanese army's and they probably would have surrendered without the dropping of the bombs.

Indeed there is.
I believe that the droppings of Little Boy and Fat Man on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unjustifiable.

1. Unanimous resolution of the League of Nations Assembly, Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing From the Air in Case of War, League of Nations, September 30, 1938
Considering that on numerous occasions public opinion has expressed through the most authoritative channels its horror of the bombing of civilian populations;…

I. Recognizes the following principles as a necessary basis for any subsequent regulations:

1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;

2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military objectives and must be identifiable;

3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence.

-Source

Bolded above are rules that I find have been broken by the Americans when they dropped the bomb.

The Japanese, as you said, were dwindling in their military forces and thus would have probably surrendered beforehand.

The use of the atomic bombs also served the purpose of demonstrating to the Russians that we had a new weapon, as people on both sides were anticipating the Cold War.

Congratulations on becoming a Moderator, by the way.
On topic:
Then again, in 1961, the Russians truly showed the entire world what they were capable of, and the Americans could not outdo it; the Tsar Bomba, or King Bomb. This bomb harboured roughly a quarter of the power of the eruption of Krakatoa, which is exceedingly powerful. Apparently, the temperatures were so scorching, that the blast was able to inflict third-degree burns 62 miles away from Ground Zero of the explosion.

 

[Deleted member]

The use of the atomic bombs also served the purpose of demonstrating to the Russians that we had a new weapon, as people on both sides were anticipating the Cold War.

It's a really good thing that a nuclear bomb didn't explode, that would have caused a lot more damage then an atom bomb could even hope to do.

We should all be glad that the nuclear bomb in Cuba didn't explode in 1962, otherwise, we wouldn't exist nowadays.

 

[Sieguest]

I can agree with that fact; I've lost that side. However, I would like to know why their systematic slaughtering of 6+ million people was viewed as justifiable in their eyes. It seems that they believed that the Jewish people, and others that perished in the Holocaust, were inferior to them. From that standpoint, I can say that the slaughtering of that many people over simple issues of superiority and inferiority is completely unjustifiable. There is no argument against me that the Holocaust was justifiable.

There really isn't, the Holocaust was basically Hitler imposing his idea that it was the Jews fault that Germany fell into an economic slump in the first place and that the Jews should be eliminated, notwithstanding the fact that before Jews were systematically killed, they were given a warning to leave the country. Also unfortunate at the time was that the U.S. had closed their borders to immigration of Jewish people. (This just happens to be the topic we were discussing in History class x.x might bring up some of this after spring break)

Indeed there is.
I believe that the droppings of Little Boy and Fat Man on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unjustifiable.

-Source

Bolded above are rules that I find have been broken by the Americans when they dropped the bomb.

The Japanese, as you said, were dwindling in their military forces and thus would have probably surrendered beforehand.

I'd have to disagree for two reasons:

1. The Japanese deliberately rejected the Postdam Declaration and ignored the U.S.'s warnings of ramifications (via the atomic bomb). The Japanese had ample warning to lay down their all ready diminished arms.

2. The United States was never part of the League of Nations, and therefore are not bound by the laws and such set forth by the League of Nations.

With that in mind, I feel that the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima -while overkill considering the purpose- are justified.

On topic:
Then again, in 1961, the Russians truly showed the entire world what they were capable of, and the Americans could not outdo it; the Tsar Bomba, or King Bomb. This bomb harboured roughly a quarter of the power of the eruption of Krakatoa, which is exceedingly powerful. Apparently, the temperatures were so scorching, that the blast was able to inflict third-degree burns 62 miles away from Ground Zero of the explosion.

@_@ dadgum, some kind of blast.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I don't understand this, I thought you previously removed the option of self-defence?

I'm just attempting to clarify.

Yeah, but that was under the impression that self-defense is justified. If we want to debate that, then that we can go ahead.

In response to Guest 438, I do not believe that going to war is a viable method of economic stimulus, or justifiable.

Let's take a look of what World War 1 did to Germany, you know the Treaty of Versailles and all. Basically it destroyed their economy, with rampant inflation. This was due to the aftermath of WW1. World Wart 2 was bad as well, when you consider the level of destruction that Germany received, whole towns were destroyed, many of their finest young men were killed. This is bad for an economy, because when someone is dead, they can't create demand or enter the workforce. After that, austerity campaigns were put in place, lowering demand, government debt skyrocketed, and generally everything went pear-shaped.

After that, killing 60-72 million people in the name of economic growth is pretty low, especially when you can do it better by stimulating the economy with infrastructure construction programs and monetary policy. Heck, the depression in the 1930s didn't make the US invade France!

Oh, and a note about the Tsar Bomb, it was only used at 50% yield, and produced a fireball 8km in diameter; making it the largest nuke ever made with a yield of 50 Megatons. The USA on the other hand had way more nukes, it's just that they were smaller. So in terms of damage the USA was always ahead.

 

[Sieguest]

In response to Guest 438, I do not believe that going to war is a viable method of economic stimulus, or justifiable.

This is why I view WWII and the Holocaust separately.
Take into account that almost no one outside of Germany knew that the Holocaust was going in, that was just tangent in the time frame of WWII.

Let's take a look of what World War 1 did to Germany, you know the Treaty of Versailles and all. Basically it destroyed their economy, with rampant inflation. This was due to the aftermath of WW1. World Wart 2 was bad as well, when you consider the level of destruction that Germany received, whole towns were destroyed, many of their finest young men were killed. This is bad for an economy, because when someone is dead, they can't create demand or enter the workforce. After that, austerity campaigns were put in place, lowering demand, government debt skyrocketed, and generally everything went pear-shaped.

Hence, my saying the war's initiation for economic stimulus, and not ending;usually most if not all countries usually fall into slight recession post-war (some more than others taking into account where the war was fought and the conditions laid out in the resulting treaty for each side of the conflict ), while experiencing economic prosperity at the war's beginning and in the war's duration. And normally the gain outdoes the loss of war for the side that is victorious and/or doesn't take the brunt of the conflict on their soil, taking into account that both sides believe that they shall be victorious in the conflict and/or that they will keep their homeland protected at the outset. From an outside standpoint you may say that starting a war for economic stimulus is not viable, but also know that we are outside of their time, and we have foreknowledge of the outcome of the war, while they in the time before the war could only guess at the outcome, and nationalistically would assume that their country would be victorious if they indeed did wage war.

After that, killing 60-72 million people in the name of economic growth is pretty low, especially when you can do it better by stimulating the economy with infrastructure construction programs and monetary policy. Heck, the depression in the 1930s didn't make the US invade France!

Of course, we did not have a leader that harbored a hatred towards the French, unlike Hitler, who hated the Jews and perceived the whole economic slump as their fault in the first place.

Also, the Holocaust, as I said earlier I feel is a tangent in the WWII time frame. Most countries outside of Germany were ignorant of the fact that this was even happening, and so wasn't a factor of war, but instead Hitler means of punishing who he felt responsible for the desperate situation they were in after WWI. The Holocaust was personally motivated in its entirety, which is why I view it as unjustifiable, unlike a potential reason one could say for waging war, which I feel was more economic.

As a disclaimer though, I'd like to say that I don't believe Hitler really thought of the economic points as a reason for waging war more so than he did for power. So I believe that Hitler's reasons are unjustifiable, but that the facet of economic stimulus in the state of depravity that Germany was in at the time would be justifiable for waging war.

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

I'd have to disagree for two reasons:

1. The Japanese deliberately rejected the Postdam Declaration and ignored the U.S.'s warnings of ramifications (via the atomic bomb). The Japanese had ample warning to lay down their all ready diminished arms.

President Harry S. Truman wrote in his diary that the target of the atomic weapon should only be a military target and not focused on innocents such as women and children. Why did the U.S. not invade Japan and cause them to ultimately surrender?
It may not have cost so many lives, at least not as many as approximately 199,000 plus many more after. Along with those incinerated painlessly in the first seconds of the blast, there were many others that suffered horribly before succumbing to diseases. That fact that so many died in both vain and agony raises the moral aspect of the bombings. I usually dislike arguing morals, but it is necessary in this case.

2. The United States was never part of the League of Nations, and therefore are not bound by the laws and such set forth by the League of Nations.

Very well then.

But then comes in the financial aspect of the dropping of the atomic bombs. Was it really worth such a fortune of the Manhattan Project (about $20,000,000,000) to drop two bombs, ravage the lives of innocents, and end the war when it was already coming to an end?

@_@ dadgum, some kind of blast.

The USA on the other hand had way more nukes, it's just that they were smaller. So in terms of damage the USA was always ahead.

Technically speaking for nowadays:

-Source

 

[Jam Stunna]

It's false to suggest that an invasion of Japan would have caused less casualties than the atomic bombs.

 

[Sieguest]

President Harry S. Truman wrote in his diary that the target of the atomic weapon should only be a military target and not focused on innocents such as women and children. Why did the U.S. not invade Japan and cause them to ultimately surrender?
It may not have cost so many lives, at least not as many as approximately 199,000 plus many more after. Along with those incinerated painlessly in the first seconds of the blast, there were many others that suffered horribly before succumbing to diseases. That fact that so many died in both vain and agony raises the moral aspect of the bombings. I usually dislike arguing morals, but it is necessary in this case.

The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the **** to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance.

A quote from your source, also with the idea in mind that Hiroshima could be considered a military target, and Truman's statement that he was bombing Hiroshima which he considered a military base. Truman also made it clear that this first bombing was a precursor of what was to come to other Japanese war industrial areas (which can also be considered military targets) if surrender was not issued, this included Nagasaki.
Given that these targets can be considered military targets, one could say that Wilson held true to what he wrote in his diary.

Civilian death is an inevitable part of an operation of this magnitude. Definitely more justifiable than the brutal treatment of U.S. POWs for no apparent reason at all.

Very well then.

But then comes in the financial aspect of the dropping of the atomic bombs. Was it really worth such a fortune of the Manhattan Project (about $20,000,000,000) to drop two bombs, ravage the lives of innocents, and end the war when it was already coming to an end?

There was also significance of the Manhattan Project outside of the present military aims, this display ended the bomb race with the U.S. having the bomb before Germany or any other dangerous power could get to it and the devastation be the other way around. It produced scientific breakthroughs in many fields of chemistry and physics, coming with us to modern times. Whether that is enough to cover a $20,000,000,000 price tag, I cannot say, but I do believe that the gains from this somewhat justify the use.

Technically speaking for nowadays:

-Source

Well, the whole world could be destroyed if every country fired off their nukes on one another. x.x

 

[Deleted member]

President Harry S. Truman wrote in his diary that the target of the atomic weapon should only be a military target and not focused on innocents such as women and children. Why did the U.S. not invade Japan and cause them to ultimately surrender?
It may not have cost so many lives, at least not as many as approximately 199,000 plus many more after.

Actually, it would had. President Harry S. Truman choose to go with the Manhatten Bombing plan because he did not want to risk the lives of many American troops and more Japanese people.

The president sent two atomic bombs at them to give them a message. They don't want to destory Japan, but they did want them to surrunder so we could have peace.

Think of it, not only would there be more casualities overall, it would also take a lot longer then to end the war at all. The war would have gone on into 1946 and it would have been that more devastating.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Hence, my saying the war's initiation for economic stimulus, and not ending;usually most if not all countries usually fall into slight recession post-war (some more than others taking into account where the war was fought and the conditions laid out in the resulting treaty for each side of the conflict ), while experiencing economic prosperity at the war's beginning and in the war's duration. And normally the gain outdoes the loss of war for the side that is victorious and/or doesn't take the brunt of the conflict on their soil, taking into account that both sides believe that they shall be victorious in the conflict and/or that they will keep their homeland protected at the outset.

Uh, slight recession? Overall benefit? What!?

The USA was the only major combatant in World War 2 to become richer because of the war. None of the other major combatants became richer. The USA was the exception and not the rule. War is not healthy for the world economy, it dries up trade, it lowers consumption (at least on the home fronts; austerity campaigns are a good example of this), steals a nice portion of the workforce, destroys infrastructure and kills people. This is all bad for the world economy.

Furthermore, you can create economic stimulus in a much more humane way, by creating jobs and building government funded infrastructure. What is the point of killing people to gain economic stimulus, when you can achieve the same or better results without killing people?

From an outside standpoint you may say that starting a war for economic stimulus is not viable, but also know that we are outside of their time, and we have foreknowledge of the outcome of the war, while they in the time before the war could only guess at the outcome, and nationalistically would assume that their country would be victorious if they indeed did wage war.

Okay, sure, but that doesn't mean that invading another country to increase the size of your economy is justifiable, or an intelligent thing to do. Think of it, the UK despite the fact that they won the war, did rather poorly out of WW2. It's not a guaranteed method of promoting economic growth, nor is it a moral one. It's similar to killing people for money, and that is evil.

Of course, we did not have a leader that harbored a hatred towards the French, unlike Hitler, who hated the Jews and perceived the whole economic slump as their fault in the first place.

You said that the Holocaust is a tangent though...

But did Hitler really hate the Polish that bad? That was the country he invaded? He may have intended to destroy the Polish Nation completely, but is that really based on a personally hatred or just the delusion of German superiority.

Also, the Holocaust, as I said earlier I feel is a tangent in the WWII time frame. Most countries outside of Germany were ignorant of the fact that this was even happening, and so wasn't a factor of war, but instead Hitler means of punishing who he felt responsible for the desperate situation they were in after WWI. The Holocaust was personally motivated in its entirety, which is why I view it as unjustifiable, unlike a potential reason one could say for waging war, which I feel was more economic. As a disclaimer though, I'd like to say that I don't believe Hitler really thought of the economic points as a reason for waging war more so than he did for power. So I believe that Hitler's reasons are unjustifiable, but that the facet of economic stimulus in the state of depravity that Germany was in at the time would be justifiable for waging war.

So, economic stimulus is a justifiable reason for waging war, or was in the 1930s? Wait, countries are starting to dish out economic stimulus, and if it's justifiable to declare war on another country to do so... Oh dear, I'd better run to my air-raid shelter!!!

In all seriousness, is economic stimulus actually a valid reason to go to war? It seems rather like killing for money if you ask me.

Also, in response to the number of Nuclear weapons this graph seems to contradict what Omnicorn is saying.

However, this graph supports Omnicorn:

The difference between our statistics, is that former graph excludes the number of warheads awaiting dismantlement and in reserve status. So, depending on how you look at it, the USA or Russia have more Nuclear weapons. However, if the either nation were to launch all their Nukes tommorow, that were currently launch ready in active deployment, the USA would have more Nukes in the air on that day.

Another note, the Tsar Bomb test occurred in 1961, just to put that into perspective.

 

[Aesir]

Actually, it would had. President Harry S. Truman choose to go with the Manhatten Bombing plan because he did not want to risk the lives of many American troops and more Japanese people.

The president sent two atomic bombs at them to give them a message. They don't want to destory Japan, but they did want them to surrunder so we could have peace.

Think of it, not only would there be more casualities overall, it would also take a lot longer then to end the war at all. The war would have gone on into 1946 and it would have been that more devastating.

Japan was already demoralized and beaten, had we continued our Incendiary bombings they would have probably surrendered. The Use of the Atomic Bomb was an unnecessary action, and just over kill.

 

[Sieguest]

Uh, slight recession? Overall benefit? What!?

The USA was the only major combatant in World War 2 to become richer because of the war. None of the other major combatants became richer. The USA was the exception and not the rule. War is not healthy for the world economy, it dries up trade, it lowers consumption (at least on the home fronts; austerity campaigns are a good example of this), steals a nice portion of the workforce, destroys infrastructure and kills people. This is all bad for the world economy.

Again, note in the quote that you took that I said " some more than others depending on the victors of the conflict/ who had less of the battle fought on their homeland". With that in mind, the U.S. is in a completely different hemisphere, and they were one of the victors of the war, they don't have to rebuild anything, their economy has experienced a surplus due to the creation of wartime jobs, they're doing great.

Germany at the outset of starting war, was doing great economically now as well, they had created war time jobs and boosted the economy. Keep in mind the factors I just listed above, and the fact that nationalistically a nation would believe that they're going to win the war, and keep the war relatively outside of their homeland. The factors I listed above are what benefits an economy in the post war and during the war, and that's what every country nationalistically will believe to happen when they start/enter war, justifying in the sense of their time.

The United Kingdom
in essence messed up their own economy, instead of creating war industries, they bought from others. Coupled with the fact that they were heavily bombed during the war, they're suffering major damage.

Furthermore, you can create economic stimulus in a much more humane way, by creating jobs and building government funded infrastructure. What is the point of killing people to gain economic stimulus, when you can achieve the same or better results without killing people?

Surely you don't mean by injecting money and creating inflation?

Okay, sure, but that doesn't mean that invading another country to increase the size of your economy is justifiable, or an intelligent thing to do. Think of it, the UK despite the fact that they won the war, did rather poorly out of WW2. It's not a guaranteed method of promoting economic growth, nor is it a moral one. It's similar to killing people for money, and that is evil.

Given the depravity of the German economy at the point, and any kind of trade being closed off to the Germans due to the events in WWI, what other option do they have than to go to war to get their economy going?

@The part I put in red- What's good and what's evil is purely based on the person, what you may consider evil and what I may consider evil may be two completely different things. With that in mind, calling something evil seems irrelevant to the argument.

Also, the UK was not in the same position as Germany... they justified their entrance for self-defensive reasons. I'm solely focusing on the Germany and the economic facet.

You said that the Holocaust is a tangent though...

That it is, fueled by Hitler's personal hatred of the Jews and his delusion that the jews caused the economic trouble they were in Post WWI. And given the fact that this was carried out by Germany and never known unto any other country until the post-war times.

But did Hitler really hate the Polish that bad? That was the country he invaded? He may have intended to destroy the Polish Nation completely, but is that really based on a personally hatred or just the delusion of German superiority.

What? The Jews... Hitler's Final Solution, mass extermination, yada yada.

The only reason I made the parallel that the U.S. didn't have a leader that hated the French is for some reason (near where I live) there seems to be an anti-French feeling. And I never really understood it.

So, economic stimulus is a justifiable reason for waging war, or was in the 1930s? Wait, countries are starting to dish out economic stimulus, and if it's justifiable to declare war on another country to do so... Oh dear, I'd better run to my air-raid shelter!!!

lol. There is more than one way to make economic stimulus, but just because one is more radical than the other shouldn't effect whether it is justifiable or not. If you need me, I'll be in the nearest bomb shelter.

In all seriousness, is economic stimulus actually a valid reason to go to war? It seems rather like killing for money if you ask me.

Given the circumstances:
Cut off from trade
In a state of depravity from previous war.

They had no means of getting money except internally, recent inflation from having to create money to pay off war reparations wasn't helping. In that case, waging war created jobs and the conquering of more territory opened up trade at a German controlled price, helping the economy.


Also, while I'm thinking on it... using post war consequences seems irrelevant to the topic for the reason that we're using foreknowledge and after the fact speculation that neither of the countries at the time knew or could factor into their decision for justifying war...
Also, using the term justification implies reason for the action and seeing as how action precedes result, and given the fact that we're outside of their time, one cannot use consequences to derail a countries' justification for entering war due to the country having no foreknowledge, unlike us, of the end result and naturally going from present conditions and nationalistic reasoning.
Now before you say the "end justifies the means" that wouldn't be true in the sense you'd wish to use it. Putting ourselves into their time, their end is the economic uplift of the country by creating wartime jobs and such, and following nationalistic views, justifying their war.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Again, note in the quote that you took that I said " some more than others depending on the victors of the conflict/ who had less of the battle fought on their homeland". With that in mind, the U.S. is in a completely different hemisphere, and they were one of the victors of the war, they don't have to rebuild anything, their economy has experienced a surplus due to the creation of wartime jobs, they're doing great.

Yeah, because they didn't suffer much of the damage. However, why can't you create jobs otherwise? Instead of killing people, why don't we mobilise the public to build infrastructure, like railroads, dams, roads, cities etc. ? That would leave out the damage, and create the growth? It's much more humane.

Germany at the outset of starting war, was doing great economically now as well, they had created war time jobs and boosted the economy. Keep in mind the factors I just listed above, and the fact that nationalistically a nation would believe that they're going to win the war, and keep the war relatively outside of their homeland. The factors I listed above are what benefits an economy in the post war and during the war, and that's what every country nationalistically will believe to happen when they start/enter war, justifying in the sense of their time.

Yes, they think that they'll win. Everyone does... But if you really want to enrich the populace without causing any of the carnage, why can't you build infrastructure and create jobs that way? Or build weapons and so forth, but not kill people with them? It seems like you'll get the same level of growth, but without the carnage.

The United Kingdom
in essence messed up their own economy, instead of creating war industries, they bought from others. Coupled with the fact that they were heavily bombed during the war, they're suffering major damage.

Yeah, but they still won, they were "right" in their predictions, but the economic results didn't turn out in their favour. This means, that if the war is damaging, even if you've won it, you can still make a loss. Didn't the possibility of damage to their country crop up in their minds when they wanted to invade pretty much everything?

Also, you'd think that the Germans and anyone involved, would learn the lessons of the previous affair wouldn't they?

Surely you don't mean by injecting money and creating inflation?

Well, is employing people building infrastructure inflationary, or expanding industry with government support? This creates jobs! See, you can create jobs without having to kill people!

Given the depravity of the German economy at the point, and any kind of trade being closed off to the Germans due to the events in WWI, what other option do they have than to go to war to get their economy going?

Uh, well repudiating their debts, uh building infrastructure, uh re-arming but not actually declaring war. They had plenty of options.

@The part I put in red- What's good and what's evil is purely based on the person, what you may consider evil and what I may consider evil may be two completely different things. With that in mind, calling something evil seems irrelevant to the argument.

Well, sure, but it is it morally (That's the word I should have put in my opening post...) justifiable to kill people for money?

Also, the UK was not in the same position as Germany... they justified their entrance for self-defensive reasons. I'm solely focusing on the Germany and the economic facet.

I'm using the UK as an example of the sort of damage a war can do to an economy, even if it wins. Is that fair?

What? The Jews... Hitler's Final Solution, mass extermination, yada yada.

The only reason I made the parallel that the U.S. didn't have a leader that hated the French is for some reason (near where I live) there seems to be an anti-French feeling. And I never really understood it.

Well, Germany invaded Poland not Israel. Slight difference... The point is, that invading another country is not justifiable at least morally, for the sole purpose of economic stimulus. The parallel I drew with the USA and France is basically an example of that.

lol. There is more than one way to make economic stimulus, but just because one is more radical than the other shouldn't effect whether it is justifiable or not. If you need me, I'll be in the nearest bomb shelter.

Actually no. If one is more kills more people, and is not always going to work, then you choose the one that works better and kills less people. Logically, the peaceful one is the one you take, because it will be more likely work, and will not destroy millions of people's lives.

Given the circumstances:
Cut off from trade
In a state of depravity from previous war.

They had no means of getting money except internally, recent inflation from having to create money to pay off war reparations wasn't helping. In that case, waging war created jobs and the conquering of more territory opened up trade at a German controlled price, helping the economy.

Actually no, the Germans had a number of means to create economic growth: Repudiation, basically defaulting on their debts, that's what they did anyway... Then modernising the economy with the building of government infrastructure. Furthermore, Germany actually was on the road to recovery before the Great Depression, proving that is possible to climb out of the whole that they were in.

Also, while I'm thinking on it... using post war consequences seems irrelevant to the topic for the reason that we're using foreknowledge and after the fact speculation that neither of the countries at the time knew or could factor into their decision for justifying war...
Also, using the term justification implies reason for the action and seeing as how action precedes result, and given the fact that we're outside of their time, one cannot use consequences to derail a countries' justification for entering war due to the country having no foreknowledge, unlike us, of the end result and naturally going from present conditions and nationalistic reasoning.
Now before you say the "end justifies the means" that wouldn't be true in the sense you'd wish to use it. Putting ourselves into their time, their end is the economic uplift of the country by creating wartime jobs and such, and following nationalistic views, justifying their war.

Sure, I kinda understand what you are saying. But, when you consider future wars, what would justify them? Economic growth seems out of the picture.

 

[Sieguest]

Yeah, because they didn't suffer much of the damage. However, why can't you create jobs otherwise? Instead of killing people, why don't we mobilise the public to build infrastructure, like railroads, dams, roads, cities etc. ? That would leave out the damage, and create the growth? It's much more humane.

I agree with you in principle here, but my question here is given the state Germany was left in, how is this possible? Which seems more effective? Rebuilding your country with what little capital you have, or initiating in aggression to take over areas with minimal resistance to buffer that small amount of capital and make it more?

Yes, they think that they'll win. Everyone does... But if you really want to enrich the populace without causing any of the carnage, why can't you build infrastructure and create jobs that way? Or build weapons and so forth, but not kill people with them? It seems like you'll get the same level of growth, but without the carnage.

Yes, but working internally will only get you so far, history shows that the more prosperous nations engaged in foreign trade. Germany being forced into an isolationist economic status is kind of what the Big Four wanted in coming up with the Treaty of Versailles. I agree to a point this type of rebuilding may be useful and in fact needed to help those displaced from the war. But with limited revenue and limited means of acquiring this revenue, this isolationist system could not last for long until Germany was forced to look outside her borders, and seeing as how all countries seemed to exclude Germany, force was necessary.

Yeah, but they still won, they were "right" in their predictions, but the economic results didn't turn out in their favour. This means, that if the war is damaging, even if you've won it, you can still make a loss. Didn't the possibility of damage to their country crop up in their minds when they wanted to invade pretty much everything?

Also, you'd think that the Germans and anyone involved, would learn the lessons of the previous affair wouldn't they?

True, but you'd have to take into account the shifts in power between WWI and WWII, previous leaders may have learned their lessons, but newer leaders having not dealt with the experience of War recoveries and own personal egos. The rise of more fascist dictators and so on.

In regards to the country crop, keep in mind the German's (and the other Axis powers) planned a fairly aggressive advance, not considering that they'd have to worry about retreating, a nationalistic oversight.

Well, is employing people building infrastructure inflationary, or expanding industry with government support? This creates jobs! See, you can create jobs without having to kill people!

If you don't have the money to pay citizens for the jobs you open up, then it could be considered inflationary, Germany was left in scraps pre-WWII with a small amount of capital. This leads back to the question I asked you at the beginning of this post.

Uh, well repudiating their debts, uh building infrastructure, uh re-arming but not actually declaring war. They had plenty of options.

Wouldn't repudiation of debts incur the wrath of the other countries expecting War reparations?

And as I said before, I can agree with rebuilding infrastructure and rearming without war to an extent, I extend the same question to you as before.

Well, sure, but it is it morally (That's the word I should have put in my opening post...) justifiable to kill people for money?

Even from a moral view, what our morals are and what others morals are may be completely different. What we feel is morally wrong, may be morally right to other people. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying it's morally right to kill people for money, but merely making the point that trying to impose our morals onto another as a means of justification is also irrelevant).

I'm using the UK as an example of the sort of damage a war can do to an economy, even if it wins. Is that fair?

Fair enough, although I still feel that some of the economic downturn experienced by the UK was brought on by the country's poor economic choices itself.

Well, Germany invaded Poland not Israel. Slight difference... The point is, that invading another country is not justifiable at least morally, for the sole purpose of economic stimulus. The parallel I drew with the USA and France is basically an example of that.

I still don't believe you can substantiate a point on the basis of morality, however horrible that may seem.

Actually no. If one is more kills more people, and is not always going to work, then you choose the one that works better and kills less people. Logically, the peaceful one is the one you take, because it will be more likely work, and will not destroy millions of people's lives.

Unless the pretense of limited capital resource says otherwise.

Actually no, the Germans had a number of means to create economic growth: Repudiation, basically defaulting on their debts, that's what they did anyway... Then modernising the economy with the building of government infrastructure. Furthermore, Germany actually was on the road to recovery before the Great Depression, proving that is possible to climb out of the whole that they were in.

True, they repudiated their debts, and note what happened to their all ready shattered foreign relations. And it seems extremely hard to modernize with limited capital in an isolationist way, although I won't say impossible.

I can't argue with the fact of Germany rising out the depression.

Sure, I kinda understand what you are saying. But, when you consider future wars, what would justify them? Economic growth seems out of the picture.

With future wars, the ONLY way I could justify war, is if in a last resort kind of situation, in which you are isolated from international trade due to some other happening. have limited capital to work with that hinders job creation or rebuilding projects due to the risk of soon exhausting that capital among the thrifty and having to increase inflation, or having a great majority in property due to an imbalance in wealth, and have exhausted all diplomatic means of the country getting back on its feet.
Which I feel was the case for Germany back in that time.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I agree with you in principle here, but my question here is given the state Germany was left in, how is this possible? Which seems more effective? Rebuilding your country with what little capital you have, or initiating in aggression to take over areas with minimal resistance to buffer that small amount of capital and make it more?

It honestly depends, just before the great depression hit, Germany was in the process of recovery. If it weren't for the great depression, they probably would have recovered. Basically, I don't actually think that they were that isolated. They were recovering before, why did they need to invade other countries if they could have recovered anyway.

Yes, but working internally will only get you so far, history shows that the more prosperous nations engaged in foreign trade. Germany being forced into an isolationist economic status is kind of what the Big Four wanted in coming up with the Treaty of Versailles. I agree to a point this type of rebuilding may be useful and in fact needed to help those displaced from the war. But with limited revenue and limited means of acquiring this revenue, this isolationist system could not last for long until Germany was forced to look outside her borders, and seeing as how all countries seemed to exclude Germany, force was necessary.

Well, have you heard of the infant industry argument? Basically, trade barriers are needed in a country to allow a country's industry to start up. So, being isolated would have allowed them to do that.

Furthermore, the Treaty of Versailles, didn't really restrict trade, so sure the old war hostilities would hinder trade, but, it wasn't quite as isolationist as you said it was.

True, but you'd have to take into account the shifts in power between WWI and WWII, previous leaders may have learned their lessons, but newer leaders having not dealt with the experience of War recoveries and own personal egos. The rise of more fascist dictators and so on.

In regards to the country crop, keep in mind the German's (and the other Axis powers) planned a fairly aggressive advance, not considering that they'd have to worry about retreating, a nationalistic oversight.

Fair enough, but it was a very large oversight. They should have taken a good long look at what they were up against and realised that it was pretty much everyone except the Axis powers. lol.

If you don't have the money to pay citizens for the jobs you open up, then it could be considered inflationary, Germany was left in scraps pre-WWII with a small amount of capital. This leads back to the question I asked you at the beginning of this post.

Well, if you're producing wealth, and I believe producing infrastructure is, then paying people for that is not inflationary. It is only inflationary if no wealth is being produced and money is being printed for no good reason.

Wouldn't repudiation of debts incur the wrath of the other countries expecting War reparations?

Actually, not really. Germany couldn't really pay back those debts, and when the great depression hit, the other countries were pretty much on the verge of letting the Germans and everyone else off for about a year, and then resuming payments. The Germans repudiated the debt anyway though in the end. The other countries by this stage sympathised with the Germans and may well have let them off.

Even from a moral view, what our morals are and what others morals are may be completely different. What we feel is morally wrong, may be morally right to other people. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying it's morally right to kill people for money, but merely making the point that trying to impose our morals onto another as a means of justification is also irrelevant).

Well, killing for the sole purpose of money, was probably frowned up back then, I'd imagine. Sure, equality wasn't exactly there or many of the morals we display today, but killing for money is in effect bounty hunting, and I don't remember that ever being considered morally acceptable in the 1930s.

True, they repudiated their debts, and note what happened to their all ready shattered foreign relations. And it seems extremely hard to modernize with limited capital in an isolationist way, although I won't say impossible.

Yeah, but the other countries were about to leave a 1 year moratorium on government debts. This wasn't a German plan! So, in effect repudiating the debts wouldn't really have been so damaging to foreign relations, if the other countries were effectively letting you do that for 1 whole year.

With future wars, the ONLY way I could justify war, is if in a last resort kind of situation, in which you are isolated from international trade due to some other happening. have limited capital to work with that hinders job creation or rebuilding projects due to the risk of soon exhausting that capital among the thrifty and having to increase inflation, or having a great majority in property due to an imbalance in wealth, and have exhausted all diplomatic means of the country getting back on its feet.
Which I feel was the case for Germany back in that time.

Well, germany hadn't quite exhausted all it's diplomatic means. It still could repudiate it's debt. Furthermore, trade wasn't restricted by the Treaty of Versailles, so it wasn't isolated entirely.

 

[Sieguest]

It honestly depends, just before the great depression hit, Germany was in the process of recovery. If it weren't for the great depression, they probably would have recovered. Basically, I don't actually think that they were that isolated. They were recovering before, why did they need to invade other countries if they could have recovered anyway.

True, and I can't really ask how far that would go since it's buffering itself.

Well, have you heard of the infant industry argument? Basically, trade barriers are needed in a country to allow a country's industry to start up. So, being isolated would have allowed them to do that.

But when would it be the time to try and engage in international trade?

Furthermore, the Treaty of Versailles, didn't really restrict trade, so sure the old war hostilities would hinder trade, but, it wasn't quite as isolationist as you said it was.

The Treaty of Versailles didn't hinder it directly, but consider some of the provisions of the treaty that related to Germany. All fault was to be placed on Germany for the war and Germany had to pay war reparations. While not directly isolating Germany, they did make a martyr out of the country and pretty much had every other country casting a despicable eye upon them. This basically forced Germany into a system of isolationism, without directly having it so. The goal of the Big Four (excluding the U.S.) was to punish Germany (However, they couldn't decide to what degree.), what better way than to completely isolate her from the rest of the world?

Fair enough, but it was a very large oversight. They should have taken a good long look at what they were up against and realised that it was pretty much everyone except the Axis powers. lol.

That's true, but also consider at the time that the Axis powers didn't consider the U.S. a threat at the outset. In fact, through America not joining the League of Nations, it showed an aversion to being entangled in European affairs, and gave the Axis the bit of bump that if the U.S. isn't putting itself into this, that taking over Europe would be of minimal damage to them. Later attacking the U.S. was pretty much them putting the final nail in their own coffin. If the Axis powers had never attacked the United States and pushed them into war, they possibly could have kept a totally offensive war.

Well, if you're producing wealth, and I believe producing infrastructure is, then paying people for that is not inflationary. It is only inflationary if no wealth is being produced and money is being printed for no good reason.

That is true.

Actually, not really. Germany couldn't really pay back those debts, and when the great depression hit, the other countries were pretty much on the verge of letting the Germans and everyone else off for about a year, and then resuming payments. The Germans repudiated the debt anyway though in the end. The other countries by this stage sympathised with the Germans and may well have let them off.

Oh, that makes more sense out of it now.

Well, killing for the sole purpose of money, was probably frowned up back then, I'd imagine. Sure, equality wasn't exactly there or many of the morals we display today, but killing for money is in effect bounty hunting, and I don't remember that ever being considered morally acceptable in the 1930s.

By whose standard? The Allied Powers standard? That would be theirs and our views alone. If it wasn't morally acceptable in Germany and the other Axis powers, then why did they wage the war in the first place?

Well, germany hadn't quite exhausted all it's diplomatic means. It still could repudiate it's debt.

Well yeah, but as you said, every country was starting the feel the depression by that time. Did Germany really have any leeway in negotiating with other countries outside of that?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

But when would it be the time to try and engage in international trade?

I'm not entirely sure. I think it probably is when the industries that are fostered in isolation are competitive enough to deal with international competition.

The Treaty of Versailles didn't hinder it directly, but consider some of the provisions of the treaty that related to Germany. All fault was to be placed on Germany for the war and Germany had to pay war reparations. While not directly isolating Germany, they did make a martyr out of the country and pretty much had every other country casting a despicable eye upon them. This basically forced Germany into a system of isolationism, without directly having it so. The goal of the Big Four (excluding the U.S.) was to punish Germany (However, they couldn't decide to what degree.), what better way than to completely isolate her from the rest of the world?

Well, if you look at it another way, the Treaty of Versailles enforced trade. The Germans had to pay the reparations in goods and services, such as coal, iron, etc. In effect, these were given away for free though. So, Germany was brought to its knees trying to pay off its reparations with goods and services. It wasn't really the isolation.

That's true, but also consider at the time that the Axis powers didn't consider the U.S. a threat at the outset. In fact, through America not joining the League of Nations, it showed an aversion to being entangled in European affairs, and gave the Axis the bit of bump that if the U.S. isn't putting itself into this, that taking over Europe would be of minimal damage to them. Later attacking the U.S. was pretty much them putting the final nail in their own coffin. If the Axis powers had never attacked the United States and pushed them into war, they possibly could have kept a totally offensive war.

I suppose so, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour, it was pretty much game over for the Axis from then on. Also, the Eastern Front crippled the German army; fighting the USSR was a bad move.

By whose standard? The Allied Powers standard? That would be theirs and our views alone. If it wasn't morally acceptable in Germany and the other Axis powers, then why did they wage the war in the first place?

Ah, but you yourself said that the reason that the Germans and the Japanese declared war was not economic development. They did it for other reasons, land-grabs, "living space" etc.

Well yeah, but as you said, every country was starting the feel the depression by that time. Did Germany really have any leeway in negotiating with other countries outside of that?

Well, not really, but neither did the other countries, if you look at it from an economic stand-point. Everything was kinda ruined in the Great Depression.

 

[Sieguest]

I'm not entirely sure. I think it probably is when the industries that are fostered in isolation are competitive enough to deal with international competition.

Fair enough.

Well, if you look at it another way, the Treaty of Versailles enforced trade. The Germans had to pay the reparations in goods and services, such as coal, iron, etc. In effect, these were given away for free though. So, Germany was brought to its knees trying to pay off its reparations with goods and services. It wasn't really the isolation.

That trade being completely one-sided and detrimental to the German economy. It makes sense that the reparations brought Germany down, but the reparations alone would not be enough to force Germany into an isolationist system. Before the depression coerced every country into a state of powerlessness, Germany had no one to deal with, because everyone viewed them as the problem country. That reluctance of other countries to deal with Germany trade-wise (in healthy trade, not the kind of one-sided trade displayed in Germany having to pay reparations) along with the reparations Germany had to pay, caused them to fall into isolationism, economically speaking.

Even looking at it the way you just described, could you deny that Germany was pressured into an isolationist type economy?

Ah, but you yourself said that the reason that the Germans and the Japanese declared war was not economic development. They did it for other reasons, land-grabs, "living space" etc.

True that I said that I believe the Germans and Japanese waged war for this reason; even so, I could still ask the same question.
If they felt that was morally wrong, then why did they wage war in the first place? The answer would be, they didn't see it as morally wrong, so they were morally justified in their own respect to wage war.

Point being, the moral standard belongs to only those who go by those morals, if someone or an entity doesn't follow those morals as their own, then in their eyes, they're are not in the wrong. In a purely philosophical sense, we cannot say they're wrong, if their morals are not like ours. It's like saying: "Your culture is wrong because it isn't the same as our culture."

Well, not really, but neither did the other countries, if you look at it from an economic stand-point. Everything was kinda ruined in the Great Depression.

True.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

That trade being completely one-sided and detrimental to the German economy. It makes sense that the reparations brought Germany down, but the reparations alone would not be enough to force Germany into an isolationist system. Before the depression coerced every country into a state of powerlessness, Germany had no one to deal with, because everyone viewed them as the problem country. That reluctance of other countries to deal with Germany trade-wise (in healthy trade, not the kind of one-sided trade displayed in Germany having to pay reparations) along with the reparations Germany had to pay, caused them to fall into isolationism, economically speaking.

Even looking at it the way you just described, could you deny that Germany was pressured into an isolationist type economy?

Yeah, okay. Frosty foreign relations after WW1, and the Treaty of Versailles really dug Germany into a hole though.

True that I said that I believe the Germans and Japanese waged war for this reason; even so, I could still ask the same question.
If they felt that was morally wrong, then why did they wage war in the first place? The answer would be, they didn't see it as morally wrong, so they were morally justified in their own respect to wage war.

Point being, the moral standard belongs to only those who go by those morals, if someone or an entity doesn't follow those morals as their own, then in their eyes, they're are not in the wrong. In a purely philosophical sense, we cannot say they're wrong, if their morals are not like ours. It's like saying: "Your culture is wrong because it isn't the same as our culture."

Okay, I think you've beat me on this one. It was morally justified in their eyes, but not in ours. However, to do so in the future, would not be morally justified, due to internationalism, interdependence, and organisations like NATO and the UN. Furthermore, we seem to have learnt certain things from history, that seem to show that trying to wage war on everyone, is usually a bad idea.

 

[Sieguest]

Yeah, okay. Frosty foreign relations after WW1, and the Treaty of Versailles really dug Germany into a hole though.

Agreed.

Okay, I think you've beat me on this one. It was morally justified in their eyes, but not in ours. However, to do so in the future, would not be morally justified, due to internationalism, interdependence, and organisations like NATO and the UN. Furthermore, we seem to have learnt certain things from history, that seem to show that trying to wage war on everyone, is usually a bad idea.

I agree with you here too. As I said earlier, I could only justify war in the present time if that country had exhausted all diplomatic, economic, and social means of helping itself, basically leaving war as a last resort. And given all the things you just described, it's a virtual impossibility.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I agree with you here too. As I said earlier, I could only justify war in the present time if that country had exhausted all diplomatic, economic, and social means of helping itself, basically leaving war as a last resort. And given all the things you just described, it's a virtual impossibility.

That's cool, seem to have reached some kind of consensus on what we're arguing about. Basically, it'd almost be impossible for war to be justified as economic stimulus, because there'd always be another option.

Thanks for jumping in by the way. You're a pretty cool guy, at least from what I've seen you write! And don't forget to keep your signature off.