Re: On world peace.
wintermute, on host 195.153.64.90
Sunday, July 1, 2001, at 06:10:01
On world peace. posted by OneCoolCat on Saturday, June 30, 2001, at 19:26:19:
> I mean, any war could be prevented. Take WW2, for example. If the allies had just surrendered to Hitler, then a war would have been averted. Sure, tons of Jews would have been killed, but it would have prevented a war. The American civil war. If the Union had just let the Confederates have their slaves, we would have had peace, but I doubt slavery is preferable to war. Get my point? Wishing for world peace is essentialy saying "I wish that everybody would leave everybody else alone so they can do whatever hideous thing they want to do so long as they don't bug me."
The age old question: is there such a thing as a just war?
Surrendering to the Germans would require us to be at war. As England declared war on Germany in response to the invsion of Poland, not having WWII would not have brought peace. Because the Anglican Church and the British Government are both officially answerable to the Monarch, the suffering of the jews could not be part of the official reason without risking constitutional problems.
British and American intelligence spent a considerable amount of their effort foiling the German military's attempts to assassinate Hitler. This was because Hitler was the worst tactician and strategist to be in charge of an army (invading Moscow in winter, for example), and diverted an amazing amount of resources from the war effort to the concentration camps. The Allies were essentially dedicated to bringing about peace even if that were at the cost of innocent lives.
I don't know too much about the American Civil War, but I understand that slavery was only a minor concern next to the South's declaration of independence. I do find it hard to believe that wealthy, white Northeners would be so strongly opposed to slavery in a foreign country that they would go to war over it; especially when if the slaves themselves thought that freedom was more valuable than life, one way or another they wouldn't be slaves. As the old saying goes, you cannot enslave a free man: you can only kill him.
I suppose what I tring to say is that, while wars can obviously have noble consequences, I can't think of any war fought entirely for noble purposes. I don't know whether the ends can outweigh the means, but my gut says maybe.
winter"peace means never having to say you're sorry"mute
|