What wars has Britain been in that you can justify?

[Chester Copperpot]

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.

Ahh yes the mighty Maginot Line. Epic fail!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

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.

As I said before, it isn't straightforward assessing such things from the perspective of hindsight. TBH, this kind of judgement is pretty futile, really. What matters is the wars Britain is in and whether or not they are justifiable.

 

[david dissadent]

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.

Verdun, Marne and the Somme were not games of Risk.

 

[Chuff]

define 'justify' please

Its interesting that prior to the second war Ireland was in open revolt and british soldiers had mutinied refusing to fight them, a battle armarda was moored off the coast ready to shell.

After the immense sacrifice by the irish troops in our War with the hun there was no publlic spirit left to fight them and it was a done deal.

History is a complex interacion of many forces, decisions made at the time must be considered in the context they were made

 

[SpookyFrank]

Verdun, Marne and the Somme were not games of Risk.

I'd argue that for the people calling the shots they were exactly that. Line up the little counters on the map, roll the dice and hope for the best

 

[Bajie]

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

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.

Give back the Falklands to who though? Arentina has about as much historical right to the islands as lithuania does over southern latvia.

 

[Iguana]

Its interesting that prior to the second war Ireland was in open revolt and british soldiers had mutinied refusing to fight them, a battle armarda was moored off the coast ready to shell.

The Irish War of Independence was fought from January 1919 to the truce in July 1921, though fighting in Northern Ireland continued for another year. British soldiers most certainly did fight against the Irish, part of the reason that the war was ended was because of George V's known disgust at the behaviour of the "Black and Tan" units and the atrocities they carried out. Between January and December 1922 57,000 British soldiers were removed from the Free State under the terms of the treaty.

 

[nightowl]

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?

the tragedy is that france had the military might to have stopped the germans in their tracks. they had the best tanks at the start of the war but didn't understand about using them en masse rather than scattered here and there as local defence units or massed behind the maginot line. with the right tactics the germans could have been sent home with their tails between their legs

 

[agricola]

the tragedy is that france had the military might to have stopped the germans in their tracks. they had the best tanks at the start of the war but didn't understand about using them en masse rather than scattered here and there as local defence units or massed behind the maginot line. with the right tactics the germans could have been sent home with their tails between their legs

The French had always used those tactics though, so perhaps they can be forgiven - the real culprits were ourselves, who both invented and ignored the tactics that Guderian went on to refine, with catastrophic results.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

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?

It's all specific actions. My point is that trying to define a "war" as something you can say was either justified or unjustified is ridiculous; wars aren't even proper things, they're periods of history during which lots of stuff happens, some which gets termed "military" and some "civilian" but which in the end are rarely distinct.

We see this continually, including nowadays; people talk about supporting the war but condemning war profiteering or politicisation the war when, in fact, key "military" decisions have always been taken with profit and political motives in mind, because politicians don't stop being politicians and somehow go into "war mode" - they continue to have the same motives they did before. Diplomacy by other means.

All that you end up by asking "was this war justified" is a load of with-us-or-against-us rhetoric; it doesn't mean anything without huge amounts of drill-down. There's no nice neat thing called WW2 which we can say was either justified or unjustified. Asking about the results of specific actions and decisions by certain parties, sure.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

It's all specific actions. My point is that trying to define a "war" as something you can say was either justified or unjustified is ridiculous; wars aren't even proper things, they're periods of history during which lots of stuff happens, some which gets termed "military" and some "civilian" but which in the end are rarely distinct..

That's the exculpatory argument that the SS officer protagonist of Jonathan Littel's The Kindly Ones uses about the Holocaust.

 

[weltweit]

The crusades were eminently justifiable [1]




[1] when we did them !!

 

[FridgeMagnet]

That's the exculpatory argument that the SS officer protagonist of Jonathan Littel's The Kindly Ones uses about the Holocaust.

That's because I'm a Nazi, obviously. Everybody knows that.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

That's because I'm a Nazi, obviously. Everybody knows that.

It's impressive that you've opted to be gauleiter on a high profile forum, though, rather than skulking in Argentina like the rest.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Nice steaks and women, but the broadband speeds are abysmal.

 

[CyberRose]

I think WW2, the Falklands, Gulf War, Balkans, Kosovo Sierra Leone and Afghanistan were justified (probably some more in between WW2 and the Falklands but I don't know enough about them atm to comment)

 

[david dissadent]

the tragedy is that france had the military might to have stopped the germans in their tracks. they had the best tanks at the start of the war but didn't understand about using them en masse rather than scattered here and there as local defence units or massed behind the maginot line. with the right tactics the germans could have been sent home with their tails between their legs

Nope German airpower made the whole battle of France a pretty onesided affair. Different tactics might have protracted it somewhat but the allies would have been effectively swept from the skies in about a month or less. Then it was only a matter of time.

 

[likesfish]

That's the exculpatory argument that the SS officer protagonist of Jonathan Littel's The Kindly Ones uses about the Holocaust.

people have always committed masscares in wars but you have to be some sort of barstard to set up camps and schedule trains to fill death camps

The falklands is an odd war in that Argentina gained from losing the war democracy a military denuded of power that could never form another military goverment not only did it lose. But it treated its consripts so badly it lost all respect.

 

[aylee]

The French and British had enough military power at the start of world war two to stop the Germans in their tracks.

This is not true. By the time that Hitler invaded Poland (and indeed for a year or two before that) Germany had rearmed sufficiently to make an invasion by France and Britain foolish. The rapid conquest of France only nine months after the war began demonstrates clearly that invasion was not an option in 1939.

It is possible that France and Britain could have prevented Germany's re-entry into the Rhineland in 1936, but by 1939 it was much too late to take this course.

 

[treelover]

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

I think you are ignoring the massive public mood/pressure against rearmament , the Peace Pledge Union for instance had hundreds of thousands of members, many MP's Opinion Formers, etc, had fought in the 'war to end all wars' and were determined they would not be party to another one. Though of course there were the 'appeasers' like Lord Halifax, etc.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I think you are ignoring the massive public mood/pressure against rearmament , the Peace Pledge Union for instance had hundreds of thousands of members, many MP's Opinion Formers, etc, had fought in the 'war to end all wars' and were determined they would not be party to another one. Though of course there were the 'appeasers' like Lord Halifax, etc.

When has the government ever given a fuck about the will of the people?

 

[nightowl]

This is not true. By the time that Hitler invaded Poland (and indeed for a year or two before that) Germany had rearmed sufficiently to make an invasion by France and Britain foolish. The rapid conquest of France only nine months after the war began demonstrates clearly that invasion was not an option in 1939.

It is possible that France and Britain could have prevented Germany's re-entry into the Rhineland in 1936, but by 1939 it was much too late to take this course.

actual invasion might not have been an option but the allies had enough military might to prevent further nazi expansion in terms of the invasions of belgium and france. if their tactics had been better and the german expansion had been halted after poland it would be very interesting to see which way the war might have gone

 

[Idaho]

It's all specific actions. My point is that trying to define a "war" as something you can say was either justified or unjustified is ridiculous; wars aren't even proper things, they're periods of history during which lots of stuff happens, some which gets termed "military" and some "civilian" but which in the end are rarely distinct.

We see this continually, including nowadays; people talk about supporting the war but condemning war profiteering or politicisation the war when, in fact, key "military" decisions have always been taken with profit and political motives in mind, because politicians don't stop being politicians and somehow go into "war mode" - they continue to have the same motives they did before. Diplomacy by other means.

All that you end up by asking "was this war justified" is a load of with-us-or-against-us rhetoric; it doesn't mean anything without huge amounts of drill-down. There's no nice neat thing called WW2 which we can say was either justified or unjustified. Asking about the results of specific actions and decisions by certain parties, sure.

Further to that these arguments suppose that there was a single person dispassionately weighing up the moral pros and cons (based on the mores and reflections of a future age) and deciding to have a nice little war on the basis of them.

Wars have historical justifications and causes. They don't have overall moral justifications.

 

[Spion]

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

I think this is quite a good assessment. I've been reading a book on German generals recently and many of them thought Germany would face disaster if they started a war with Britain, France etc and tried to organise against it, including coup plots in the period 38-40. In fact Hitler had to get rid of some significant dissenting voices, including the CinC of the army (who was removed via a Gestapo-manufactured 'homosexuality' scandal). German high command opposition to war was silenced by the Wehrmacht's early successes, although there was a coup plot which included its commanders in France in 1940. They were right to think Germany faced disaster if it started a war. They were wrong in their assessment of timing - Germany's armed forces' weakness took a longer time than expected to show because its opponents were caught off guard and hadn't expected Germany to do what it did (and that was pretty much down to Hitler as a driving force of its military campaigns).

 

[kyser_soze]

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.

Interesting you say that, because I've got an old bound volume of a magazine called 'The World At War' from late 1939/Early 1940 which has pictures of Jews being tortured and made to do various excercises (such as jumping over impossibly high walls) in it.

 

[ska invita]

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

Yes and no - of course you are right in pointing out this slip up, but it was clear by the time Germany invaded Poland that he was on a mission that had no end, and there was concern that he was going for the lot. I view British invovlement it as an act of self-defence as much as anything else.

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

In GIbraltar give it back to SPain, who have asked nicely very recently - I think ti was Blair who told them to piss off. Northern Ireland, I think Britain should campaign to remove themselves and let NI either be independent, or rejoin Ireland (<im sure there is a more sophisticated answer to this, but thats my laymans answer). Falklands are a military outpost, held for strategic reasons - if Argentina want them they should have them.

Facism in 1914?

Pretty much all European countries in Europe at the start of the century had fascist characteristics in my opinion.

Somewhat patronising.

My neighbour signed up and spent two years in NI, got bullied repeatedly and left dejected. He only signed up cos he failed at school and didnt know what else to do. Nothing patronising about recognising that as a fact.

The bottom line is there is an onus on soldiers to make a decision not to take part in illegal/immoral wars no matter what their commanders may say - Iraq a clear cut case IMO.

 

[butchersapron]

Do people just stop reading when they leave school or something?

 

[MikeMcc]

Yes and no - of course you are right in pointing out this slip up, but it was clear by the time Germany invaded Poland that he was on a mission that had no end, and there was concern that he was going for the lot. I view British invovlement it as an act of self-defence as much as anything else.


In GIbraltar give it back to SPain, who have asked nicely very recently - I think ti was Blair who told them to piss off. Northern Ireland, I think Britain should campaign to remove themselves and let NI either be independent, or rejoin Ireland (<im sure there is a more sophisticated answer to this, but thats my laymans answer). Falklands are a military outpost, held for strategic reasons - if Argentina want them they should have them.


Pretty much all European countries in Europe at the start of the century had fascist characteristics in my opinion.



My neighbour signed up and spent two years in NI, got bullied repeatedly and left dejected. He only signed up cos he failed at school and didnt know what else to do. Nothing patronising about recognising that as a fact.

The bottom line is there is an onus on soldiers to make a decision not to take part in illegal/immoral wars no matter what their commanders may say - Iraq a clear cut case IMO.

The Spanish government can ask until they're blue in the face, the Gibraltarians have told them to fuck right off twice now. The same would be the case with NI, as it is at the moment.

I'm sorry for your neighbour, but you can't extend his experience to others in the Army. or to the organisation as a whole. Your comment about soldiers having to make decisions about taking part in 'illegal/immoral' wars just shows that you have no idea how the military functions. In saying that, there has always been a mechanism for them to do that - they can get out (unless they are tasked for operations).

 

[likesfish]

the people who live on the islands seem quite happy to be islanders
ska invita who are you to tell a bunch of people sorry argentina wants to rule you.
so learn spanish or leave your homes

 

[glenquagmire]

Not that I feel especially strongly either way, but you can't just invade a country, populate it with your own loyal citizens (sometimes forcibly removing others), then turn round a few years later and say "but look, the people who live there want to remain part of Britain (or wherever)".

It's logically nonsensical, whatever you think of the other arguments about Gibraltar/NI/Falklands/etc.