What wars has Britain been in that you can justify?

[Belushi]

Fuck off, ed. I hate that kind of lazy talk. If you were an Indian being drafted in to fight while millions of your countrymen were starving in an avoidable famine in large part because the country's production had been directed towards helping the war effort of your colonial masters, you may have a different perspective. It's not simple goodies vs baddies, however much you may wish it to be.

India didnt have a draft, although it did produce two million volunteers for WW2, the Bengal famine occured prior to WW2 not because of the subcontinents production had been directed towards helping the war effort.

 

[Orang Utan]

Fuck off, ed. I hate that kind of lazy talk. If you were an Indian being drafted in to fight while millions of your countrymen were starving in an avoidable famine in large part because the country's production had been directed towards helping the war effort of your colonial masters, you may have a different perspective. It's not simple goodies vs baddies, however much you may wish it to be.

indeed.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

India didnt have a draft, although it did produce two million volunteers for WW2, the Bengal famine occured prior to WW2 not because of the subcontinents production had been directed towards helping the war effort.

The Bengal famine occurred in 1942, and was the disaster it was in no small part due to the negligence of Churchill and others.

 

[Belushi]

The Bengal famine occurred in 1942, and was the disaster it was in no small part due to the negligence of Churchill and others.

Youre right, why am I thinking 1930's?

Edited to add Im confusing it with famine in china in the 30's.

 

[editor]

Fuck off, ed.
It's not simple goodies vs baddies, however much you may wish it to be.

If you want a grown up discussion, quit insulting me just because I don't nod my head in time with your simplistic arguments, and stop childishly trying to put words in my mouth.

 

[mattie]

If you want a grown up discussion, quit insulting me just because I don't nod my head in time with your simplistic arguments, and stop childishly trying to put words in my mouth.

OK, but what do you make of the argument that various protagonists didn't quite have the clear 'good vs bad' distinction we in the UK arguably may have had?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

It's pointless saying "is a war justified" in any case - what, everything that was said to be done as part of "the war"? A war isn't a special magic time when everything else stops and then starts again afterwards.

 

[Orang Utan]

your argument is rather simplistic too though, ed
churchill is almost as big a villain as hitler and stalin were, but people look upon ww2 with rose-tinted specs as some kind of epic and noble battle for freedom, when it was never the case.

 

[Iguana]

why did britain get involved in ww2?
was it to save the jews?

Well it certainly wasn't that. They war was about 2 years old when the first real reports of what was happening to the jews started reaching the British government from Poland. The first report of mass gassings known to have reached the home office has 'Bolshevist propaganda?' written in the margin. In late '42 some knowledge had started leaking to the public and there was a small public campaign to try and stop it. But this faded in early 43. It seems that largely the allies really couldn't do anything real to stop the holocaust at this point so they largely chose to ignore it as it would have been futile to try.

In May '44 the Slovakian leaders strongly urged the allies to destroy two specific rail lines, but were largely ignored. The following month the Vrba-Wetzler Report reached the allies, so they had a detailed report from two escapees and knew exactly what was happening. Still requests to divert military resources to "rescue" operations were viewed unsympathetically by Assistant Secretary John McCloy as only likely to slow victory at a time of climactic battles in Europe.

Stopping the nazis was a good thing and history has made WW2 a righteous war. But the war was never fought for those reasons. Ending the holocaust was an incidental consequence of a war fought in order to prevent a powerful aggressive empire from growing.

 

[Belushi]

Given that both my Grandfathers would have been shot out of hand by the Nazi regime (one for being half Jewish one for being a Communist agitator) I'm eternally grateful for those who did fight.

 

[Belushi]

Stopping the nazis was a good thing and history has made WW2 a righteous war. But the war was never fought for those reasons. Ending the holocaust was an incidental consequence of a war fought in order to prevent a powerful aggressive empire from growing.

Spot on.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think WW2 is justifiable - Britain was invaded on its borders, so its out and out self defence.

Admit it. You failed your history GCSE, didn't you?

A war like the Falklands could be considered similar (an attack on British territory), but IMO we should give back the Falklands, Gibraltar and Northern Ireland (and the rest), and claiming these territories as British is unjustifiable. So to me Falklands is unjustifiable.

The Falklands, like most wars, happened for a number of reasons. The justification was that British citizens had been subjected to foreign invasion, but the reasons behind sending a task force probably had as much to do with securing an area that gave us access to claiming sovereignty over the coastal waters of the Falklands (access that Thatcher's foreign office nearly gave away), than securing the freedom of a handful of citizens whose existence constituted a net expense to the Treasury.

WW1 was, from what I can tell, not unlike an earthquake - Imperial and fascist tectonic plates rubbing up against each other, and with historical hindsight seems somewhat inevitable (short of a peaceful revolution on an epic scale).

All the rest (and there are many) all seem illegal and unjustifiable. Can you convince me otherwise?

I bring this up because, what with remembrance day and all, I find it near impossible to sympathise with soldiers who repeatedly take part in unjustifiable acts of state violence and seem never to apply the lesson of WW2 - that following orders is not an excuse.

I do of course have sympathy for squadies who get signed up as a result of a failed education/social economic system and feel there is nothing else for them to do (and the families they leave behind) - but really soldiers should know better what they are getting themselves into, and at a minimum ask themselves the question in this thread.

I would much rather they didn't sign up, or showed some courage and refused to fight in illegal wars, and then I wouldn't have to be emotionally blackmailed into giving money to their bereaved families - not to mention the guilt of having paid through taxation for the slaughter of innocents around the world.

Here's a list of the wars Britain has been involved in since 1945 (leaving out many colonial outrages before that time):
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/main/index1.html

What you need to bear in mind is the difference between justifications given for war, any war, and the underlying socio-economics and geo-politics.

 

[mattie]

It's pointless saying "is a war justified" in any case - what, everything that was said to be done as part of "the war"? A war isn't a special magic time when everything else stops and then starts again afterwards.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, the principle should surely be whether the decision to engage in war was a justifiable result of the preceding circumstances and assumed ramifications of the ongoing circumstances. It's not taken free of surrounding context.

Or are you talking about specific actions in war, for example Dresden?

 

[Fuchs66]

I think WW2 is justifiable - Britain was invaded on its borders, so its out and out self defence.

As mentioned we joined the fight because Poland was invaded nowt to do with a threat to our borders that came later

A war like the Falklands could be considered similar (an attack on British territory), but IMO we should give back the Falklands, Gibraltar and Northern Ireland (and the rest), and claiming these territories as British is unjustifiable. So to me Falklands is unjustifiable.

Also as mentioned, to whom should we give these territories back as the majority wish to remain as they are.

WW1 was, from what I can tell, not unlike an earthquake - Imperial and fascist tectonic plates rubbing up against each other, and with historical hindsight seems somewhat inevitable (short of a peaceful revolution on an epic scale).

Facism in 1914?

All the rest (and there are many) all seem illegal and unjustifiable. Can you convince me otherwise?

Korea, Malaya, Sierra Leone to mention 3, most others I agree with to a point although the tactics that were acceptable at the time are on occasion more than questionable now (that includes your WW2 example of a justifiable war)

I bring this up because, what with remembrance day and all, I find it near impossible to sympathise with soldiers who repeatedly take part in unjustifiable acts of state violence and seem never to apply the lesson of WW2 - that following orders is not an excuse.

Following legal orders has never been a problem or can you tell me how many Wehrmacht soldiers (or Waffen SS for that matter) were punished (above and beyond POW status on capture) for taking part in normal combat operations during WW2? I think your understanding of the Geneva conventions is pretty poor. Ps I think I can speak for the majority of soldiers when I say your sympathy is not wanted

I do of course have sympathy for squadies who get signed up as a result of a failed education/social economic system and feel there is nothing else for them to do (and the families they leave behind) - but really soldiers should know better what they are getting themselves into, and at a minimum ask themselves the question in this thread.

Somewhat patronising.

 

[Iguana]

What would I have done in 1066? Would I have joined in with Boudicca's revolt? Well, if I had grown up then, I would have been a different person from who I am now, so who knows?

Huh? You're about 1000 years off there. Boudicca was a Celtic leader who fought against the Romans. She died in about 60AD. 1066 was the decisive battle of the Norman invasion of the largely Saxon England.

 

[likesfish]

lbj your a pacisfist so no use of even harsh language would ever be justified.
obviously the british are the most evil regimine.
her hitler was just misunderstood as were the japanise.
The argie military junta should have been given the isle of wright as well because there not british

 

[Dan U]

Personally, I can't bear all this hypocritical, hindsight-powered morality, spoken from the comfort of a nice easy life compared to our forefathers.

^^^^^

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We all should be fucking thankful to the ordinary men and women who gave up their lives so that we'd be free to post shit on the internet any time we feel like it. .

Sorry, and you're accusing me of being simplistic?

Huh? You're about 1000 years off there. Boudicca was a Celtic leader who fought against the Romans. She died in about 60AD. 1066 was the decisive battle of the Norman invasion of the largely Saxon England.

These were two different examples! I obviously didn't make it clear that I was giving two examples of past conflicts in Britain.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

lbj your a pacisfist so no use of even harsh language would ever be justified.
obviously the british are the most evil regimine.
her hitler was just misunderstood as were the japanise.
The argie military junta should have been given the isle of wright as well because there not british

I'm not a pacifist, which is why such questions are not straightforward to me.

ETA the rest of your post is too stupid to respond to.

 

[Iguana]

These were two different examples! I obviously didn't make it clear that I was giving two examples of past conflicts in Britain.

I wondered if you meant that but your "what if I lived then" made it seem as if you were talking about one battle rather than numerous ones.

 

[spacemonkey]

Fuck off, ed. I hate that kind of lazy talk. If you were an Indian being drafted in to fight while millions of your countrymen were starving in an avoidable famine in large part because the country's production had been directed towards helping the war effort of your colonial masters, you may have a different perspective. It's not simple goodies vs baddies, however much you may wish it to be.

Can you explain in more detail your point of view, I'm genuinely interested.

Do you think we were wrong to go to war after Poland was invaded?

What were the other options?

You don't hear many people say that the allies weren't the 'goodies' in WW2.

 

[Iguana]

You don't hear many people say that the allies weren't the 'goodies' in WW2.

That's almost entirely because they stopped the holocaust (eventually). But that isn't why they fought. Initially the war was fought to prevent a powerful neighbour from becoming more powerful. Churchill didn't declare war to save the jews, or freedom or end fascism. He did so because a powerful neighbour is a threat. Especially if that powerful neighbour is the same neighbour you fucked over 20 years ago.

 

[Stigmata]

You could argue that he knew if Germany got more powerful, then an invasion was on the cards. Compared with the Third Reich, 1930s Britain was indeed a free society.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The French and British had enough military power at the start of world war two to stop the Germans in their tracks. Instead the British dithered over whether or not to just make peace with Hitler while the French opted to honour their own promise to attack Germany in the event of the Germans invading Poland in the most perfunctory way imgainable, ie by sending a few blokes with pointy sticks across the rhine for an afternoon then hastily bringing them back again before any Germans showed up.

If Britain and France were really so desperate to get rid of Hitler they could have done so with minimal trouble (minimal compared to what actually happened at any rate) but at that point neither country saw the Germans as a plausible threat to their own territories so they sat around with their thumbs up their arses instead. Righteousness and heroism would have to wait until our own backs were against the wall unfortunately, and indeed the French are still waiting for theirs

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Do you think we were wrong to go to war after Poland was invaded?

It depends whether or not you classed yourself as part of the 'we'. The stories of the thousands of draft-dodgers in WW2 are of course diverse, but a great many of them were people on the margins of society. One such man, whose response to conscription was 'bollocks to that' grew up in a children's home and had spent his adult life being denied opportunity after opportunity. He didn't see 'us' going to war. He saw 'them' asking him to risk his life for them, and asked the simple question 'What have you ever done for me?'

You can multiply that by 1000 for many of those in the colonies.

 

[david dissadent]

Churchill didn't declare war to save the jews, or freedom or end fascism.

Chamberlain.

 

[david dissadent]

The French and British had enough military power at the start of world war two to stop the Germans in their tracks. Instead the British dithered over whether or not to just make peace with Hitler while the French opted to honour their own promise to attack Germany in the event of the Germans invading Poland in the most perfunctory way imgainable, ie by sending a few blokes with pointy sticks across the rhine for an afternoon then hastily bringing them back again before any Germans showed up.

If Britain and France were really so desperate to get rid of Hitler they could have done so with minimal trouble (minimal compared to what actually happened at any rate) but at that point neither country saw the Germans as a plausible threat to their own territories so they sat around with their thumbs up their arses instead. Righteousness and heroism would have to wait until our own backs were against the wall unfortunately, and indeed the French are still waiting for theirs

France was set up for a defensive war. The brutal lessons of WWI had taught them to defend not too attack. They believed they had turned their nothern frontier one long Verdun. Why attack then and leave the defences?

I think your analysis is somewhat lacking and anachonistic.

 

[agricola]

It depends whether or not you classed yourself as part of the 'we'. The stories of the thousands of draft-dodgers in WW2 are of course diverse, but a great many of them were people on the margins of society. One such man, whose response to conscription was 'bollocks to that' grew up in a children's home and had spent his adult life being denied opportunity after opportunity. He didn't see 'us' going to war. He saw 'them' asking him to risk his life for them, and asked the simple question 'What have you ever done for me?'

You can multiply that by 1000 for many of those in the colonies.

The irony is, of course, that for such people - both draft-dodgers and native movements - had the other side won (both Germany and Imperial Japan) their situation would have been (and indeed was for those in Singapore, Hong Kong etc) markedly worse.

 

[SpookyFrank]

France was set up for a defensive war. The brutal lessons of WWI had taught them to defend not too attack. They believed they had turned their nothern frontier one long Verdun. Why attack then and leave the defences?

I think your analysis is somewhat lacking and anachonistic.

They were obliged by their agreement with Poland to attack though. And their defensive strategy didn't turn out so well as I recall, in fact anyone who has played more than two games of Risk in their life would have quite rightly laughed at it.

 

[Iguana]

Chamberlain.

Yes, sorry, rookie mistake.