Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: The rights and wrongs of WWI & II

  1. #1

    Default The rights and wrongs of WWI & II

    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.
    Quot capita, tot sententia

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default 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.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    ireland
    Posts
    86
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: war

    Quote Originally Posted by oreiley1
    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
    ahhh feck off

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    316
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default Re: The rights and wrongs of WWI & II

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate
    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?

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    27
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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.

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Inside My Own Mind
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default 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.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    8,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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.
    "Give us the future, we've had enough of YOUR past, Give us back our country, to live in, to grow in and to love..."

  8. #8
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    17
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ireland2004
    Quote Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by emmet100
    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.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member FutureTaoiseach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dept. of FutureTaoiseach
    Posts
    7,992
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    ireland
    Posts
    86
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FutureTaoiseach
    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.
    ahhh feck off

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •