I was asking because I don’t know of any. I recognize I don’t know everything and would be happy to learn more history.
I’m not saying genocides don’t happen. Of the ones I can think of, the victims were not able to form militaries to fight back. Genocide requires a power imbalance.
Are organized rebellions (like the Hutu in 1959) military? I would argue they are not because they were not the state. I think that’s an important distinction. Being the state sanctioned group which remains at least somewhat assembled during peace carries special weight.
Maybe you could say Hamas et al cause wars in response to genocide but again I don’t think they strictly fall into a state military.
Ukraine is literally defending itself right now against a state that is committing genocide on its occupied territory.
But, looking at history, there are wars specifically started to cause state-sponsored genocide in another state. And I’ll avoid anything Israeli.
There’s the first Congo war, which specially killed everyone in now-Congo to make room for the Hutu Rwandans. They started killing Tutsi in their own country, but specifically attacked another state to keep the genocide going.
There’s the Bosnian Genocide, though that wasn’t technically started to do genocide, it was kept going in order to commit more genocide.
Indonesia invaded East Timor for the express purpose of “pacifying” the sovereign state, killing a third of all people there.
After Bangladesh gained independence from Pakistan, Pakistan launched a war specifically to get rid of the Bengal people who initiated their independence.
And of course, you already mentioned WW2, a war started with the explicit goal of creating more living room for the German people.
There are significantly more genocides where there’s a larger gap between conquering an area and genociding the original inhabitants though. If you annex a place first, and then genocide it, it falls outside your specific examples. Granted, I’m skirting those a bit, since Russia sees the Donbass as Russian, and them not being at war with Ukraine…
I think it’s also important to note here that the previous poster is creating an unrealistic standard by insisting that genocide even be in the picture.
Any war of aggression is a bad thing that people should be able to defend themselves from. And that means having a military. And defending other people from wars of aggression means having a military.
We don’t have to be talking about genocide. Whether or not Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine (they are certainly engaged in ethnic cleansing, regardless of any other definitions) is actually irrelevant. The people of Ukraine should not have their future determined by the fact that Putin has men with guns and the willingness to use them. It’s as simple as that. And as long as people like Putin exist in the world, having a military will often be the only way to prevent stuff like that from happening.
I think it’s also important to note here that the previous poster is creating an unrealistic standard by insisting that genocide even be in the picture.
I didn’t bring up genocide, the person you are respond to did.
I am genuinely curious to know who is framing the war between Russia and Ukraine as genocide. My understanding is Ukraine views it as imperialism and Russia views it as liberating people who are Russian from Ukrainian rule (if we are talking about Crimea/Donbas) or stopping Ukraine from doing some sort of evil, I’m not totally clear on this one.
First Congo War is debatable but before I expand on that I want to make sure you understand the war happened after the 1994 genocide? You are referring to a second genocide? (Not debating if the mass killing during the war counted as genocide, just wanting to make sure we are talking about the same thing).
Bosnia genocide I don’t think I need to reply further because I agree it wasn’t started to do genocide.
East Timor: disagree. There was a civil war because of how the colonial power left (one could say by design) and Indonesia saw it as an annexation opportunity. It wasn’t a war between two established states in response to intention to commit genocide.
Bangladesh: I don’t think I know who the military who opposed Pakistan was?
WWII: My point has been no allied power cared about liebestraum until it threatened their own borders/colonial interests. If we go back to the comment I was replying to, the person was talking about one country defending itself against another because they thought they didn’t deserve to live because of their world view, sexuality or colour of skin. I suppose if you stretch world view into believing they should be allowed to live their life in peace then sure that applies. I can’t argue with that one.
one country defending itself against another because they thought they didn’t deserve to live because of their world view, sexuality or colour of skin.
You’ve since added the requirements that the invader needed to state their genocidal intention beforehand, and that both countries need to be recognized states that have some as-yet unstated time period of independence.
Since you’re constantly shifting the goalposts, it’s impossible to meet your requirements…
You’ve since added the requirements that the invader needed to state their genocidal intention beforehand, and that both countries need to be recognized states that have some as-yet unstated time period of independence.
No I haven’t?
It’s 100% possible I misunderstood the person I was replying to, I have no problem acknowledging that. I took their comment to be a question of if it’s morally correct to defend a border with a military if the invading military is doing so because they think you “don’t deserve to live because of your world view, your sexuality, your skin colour?”
If you interpret that differently then we are discussing different things and not arguing the same point.
I do think that an army/militia and and military are different. I think a military needs a state, by definition. I think the fact that the military enforces the will of a state is what makes it evil and what makes it so easy to present war as just and self defense while hiding the motive of imperialism.
Since you’re constantly shifting the goalposts, it’s impossible to meet your requirements…
For added clarity this is what I think is going on in our exchange:
My original statement was that I am not aware of a war that was started between two militaries that was one military defending it’s people from another who wanted to wipe them out for their viewpoints, sexuality, colour of their skin.
You replied saying wars result in genocide. I don’t disagree with that. That’s still not what the comment you were replying to (this one for clarity) was saying.
It is not reasonable for you to tell me what I meant the same way it’s not reasonable for me to tell you what you mean by yours.
You are expecting me to discuss your point, which is that wars result in genocide, whereas I am continuing to discuss the idea that wars start as a response to genocide.
I don’t understand why you would come into a conversation, reply telling me I am wrong and demand I defend a point I wasn’t trying to make.
I made the mistake of thinking you were raising new points to support the idea that I was wrong about what I was discussing, but I was clearly wrong about that.
There’s no such thing as a perfectly moral war. But would the world be better off today if everyone had just rolled over and let the Nazis do what they want?
Would the world be better off today if people fought the Nazis earlier and not only when it threatened their imperialism and no one used it to further their imperialism? Yes. But that wasn’t what we were discussing.
Did armed resistance to the Nazis from state military start because of the genocide? No.
OK. But that’s not what I asked, is it?
The question is simple; would the world be better off if no one had engaged in armed resistance to the Nazis. Why they did it - the exact specifics of a complex sea of motivations - is beside the point.
Arguing that we should just not have a military is arguing that the world should have just let the Nazis take over. It’s that simple. It’s not about good and bad, it’s about what’s necessary. Reality does not care about your moral purity.
Is it good someone stopped the Nazis from genocide? Yes.
Did armed resistance to the Nazis from state military start because of the genocide? No.
Why countries entered WWII is critical to my position and key to how I view the ethics here. My position is that countries are happy to allow people to think they entered to war to stop the Holocaust because it buys them goodwill. If they can defend their new wars by saying “These guys are just like the Nazis, we are being liberators again!” people are less likely to push back.
This isn’t about moral purity. I don’t think violence is never justified. I am not aware of an example there a state started a war with another state to stop the killing of people because of their worldview, sexuality, or colour of their skin. That’s it’s. That’s my whole statement.
Maybe you don’t define military the same way I do (in that it has to be attached to a state). That’s fine. I have no interest in arguing over the definition because it’s a distraction from us understanding each other. We can just accept our definition is different (if that’s the case).
Is it good someone stopped the Nazis from genocide? Yes.
There we go. End of discussion.
I’m not here to debate the idea that wars are bad, or that they happen for complex, often highly immoral reasons. I never staked out any of those positions. In fact I literally said previously “There is no such thing as a perfectly moral war.”
But none of that changes the fact that, like it or not, militaries are necessary. They’re necessary because wars get started for immoral reasons. Because we can’t wish ourselves into a world where autocrats and fascists and nationalists and revanchists don’t exist. We can work to build that world, and we should. But it will take time, and we do not get the luxury of living without any means of stopping those people in the meantime.
You can’t be a progressive nation if you’re not a nation at all.
I can’t think of a war that happened because of this. Please don’t say WW2 because even the history books don’t claim it was to stop the atrocities.
That’s a very weirdly specific take that’s very dishonest.
There are a huge number of wars that resulted in the genocide, or at least mass death of the losing party.
Many people have defended themselves specifically because the attacking side wanted to kill them all.
I was asking because I don’t know of any. I recognize I don’t know everything and would be happy to learn more history.
I’m not saying genocides don’t happen. Of the ones I can think of, the victims were not able to form militaries to fight back. Genocide requires a power imbalance.
Are organized rebellions (like the Hutu in 1959) military? I would argue they are not because they were not the state. I think that’s an important distinction. Being the state sanctioned group which remains at least somewhat assembled during peace carries special weight.
Maybe you could say Hamas et al cause wars in response to genocide but again I don’t think they strictly fall into a state military.
I don’t even need history.
Ukraine is literally defending itself right now against a state that is committing genocide on its occupied territory.
But, looking at history, there are wars specifically started to cause state-sponsored genocide in another state. And I’ll avoid anything Israeli.
There’s the first Congo war, which specially killed everyone in now-Congo to make room for the Hutu Rwandans. They started killing Tutsi in their own country, but specifically attacked another state to keep the genocide going.
There’s the Bosnian Genocide, though that wasn’t technically started to do genocide, it was kept going in order to commit more genocide.
Indonesia invaded East Timor for the express purpose of “pacifying” the sovereign state, killing a third of all people there.
After Bangladesh gained independence from Pakistan, Pakistan launched a war specifically to get rid of the Bengal people who initiated their independence.
And of course, you already mentioned WW2, a war started with the explicit goal of creating more living room for the German people.
There are significantly more genocides where there’s a larger gap between conquering an area and genociding the original inhabitants though. If you annex a place first, and then genocide it, it falls outside your specific examples. Granted, I’m skirting those a bit, since Russia sees the Donbass as Russian, and them not being at war with Ukraine…
I think it’s also important to note here that the previous poster is creating an unrealistic standard by insisting that genocide even be in the picture.
Any war of aggression is a bad thing that people should be able to defend themselves from. And that means having a military. And defending other people from wars of aggression means having a military.
We don’t have to be talking about genocide. Whether or not Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine (they are certainly engaged in ethnic cleansing, regardless of any other definitions) is actually irrelevant. The people of Ukraine should not have their future determined by the fact that Putin has men with guns and the willingness to use them. It’s as simple as that. And as long as people like Putin exist in the world, having a military will often be the only way to prevent stuff like that from happening.
I didn’t bring up genocide, the person you are respond to did.
I am genuinely curious to know who is framing the war between Russia and Ukraine as genocide. My understanding is Ukraine views it as imperialism and Russia views it as liberating people who are Russian from Ukrainian rule (if we are talking about Crimea/Donbas) or stopping Ukraine from doing some sort of evil, I’m not totally clear on this one.
First Congo War is debatable but before I expand on that I want to make sure you understand the war happened after the 1994 genocide? You are referring to a second genocide? (Not debating if the mass killing during the war counted as genocide, just wanting to make sure we are talking about the same thing).
Bosnia genocide I don’t think I need to reply further because I agree it wasn’t started to do genocide.
East Timor: disagree. There was a civil war because of how the colonial power left (one could say by design) and Indonesia saw it as an annexation opportunity. It wasn’t a war between two established states in response to intention to commit genocide.
Bangladesh: I don’t think I know who the military who opposed Pakistan was?
WWII: My point has been no allied power cared about liebestraum until it threatened their own borders/colonial interests. If we go back to the comment I was replying to, the person was talking about one country defending itself against another because they thought they didn’t deserve to live because of their world view, sexuality or colour of skin. I suppose if you stretch world view into believing they should be allowed to live their life in peace then sure that applies. I can’t argue with that one.
You’ve since added the requirements that the invader needed to state their genocidal intention beforehand, and that both countries need to be recognized states that have some as-yet unstated time period of independence.
Since you’re constantly shifting the goalposts, it’s impossible to meet your requirements…
No I haven’t?
It’s 100% possible I misunderstood the person I was replying to, I have no problem acknowledging that. I took their comment to be a question of if it’s morally correct to defend a border with a military if the invading military is doing so because they think you “don’t deserve to live because of your world view, your sexuality, your skin colour?”
If you interpret that differently then we are discussing different things and not arguing the same point.
I do think that an army/militia and and military are different. I think a military needs a state, by definition. I think the fact that the military enforces the will of a state is what makes it evil and what makes it so easy to present war as just and self defense while hiding the motive of imperialism.
For added clarity this is what I think is going on in our exchange:
My original statement was that I am not aware of a war that was started between two militaries that was one military defending it’s people from another who wanted to wipe them out for their viewpoints, sexuality, colour of their skin.
You replied saying wars result in genocide. I don’t disagree with that. That’s still not what the comment you were replying to (this one for clarity) was saying.
It is not reasonable for you to tell me what I meant the same way it’s not reasonable for me to tell you what you mean by yours.
You are expecting me to discuss your point, which is that wars result in genocide, whereas I am continuing to discuss the idea that wars start as a response to genocide.
I don’t understand why you would come into a conversation, reply telling me I am wrong and demand I defend a point I wasn’t trying to make.
I made the mistake of thinking you were raising new points to support the idea that I was wrong about what I was discussing, but I was clearly wrong about that.
Well that seems an arbitrary distinction.
It is an arbitrary distinction. I’m explaining my viewpoint.
Oh, well that’s fair.
There’s no such thing as a perfectly moral war. But would the world be better off today if everyone had just rolled over and let the Nazis do what they want?
Would the world be better off today if people fought the Nazis earlier and not only when it threatened their imperialism and no one used it to further their imperialism? Yes. But that wasn’t what we were discussing.
All you’re doing here is dodging the question.
No, I answered your question.
Edit: I can be more clear.
Is it good someone stopped the Nazis from genocide? Yes.
Did armed resistance to the Nazis from state military start because of the genocide? No.
OK. But that’s not what I asked, is it?
The question is simple; would the world be better off if no one had engaged in armed resistance to the Nazis. Why they did it - the exact specifics of a complex sea of motivations - is beside the point.
Arguing that we should just not have a military is arguing that the world should have just let the Nazis take over. It’s that simple. It’s not about good and bad, it’s about what’s necessary. Reality does not care about your moral purity.
You may not have seen my edit:
Is it good someone stopped the Nazis from genocide? Yes.
Did armed resistance to the Nazis from state military start because of the genocide? No.
Why countries entered WWII is critical to my position and key to how I view the ethics here. My position is that countries are happy to allow people to think they entered to war to stop the Holocaust because it buys them goodwill. If they can defend their new wars by saying “These guys are just like the Nazis, we are being liberators again!” people are less likely to push back.
This isn’t about moral purity. I don’t think violence is never justified. I am not aware of an example there a state started a war with another state to stop the killing of people because of their worldview, sexuality, or colour of their skin. That’s it’s. That’s my whole statement.
Maybe you don’t define military the same way I do (in that it has to be attached to a state). That’s fine. I have no interest in arguing over the definition because it’s a distraction from us understanding each other. We can just accept our definition is different (if that’s the case).
There we go. End of discussion.
I’m not here to debate the idea that wars are bad, or that they happen for complex, often highly immoral reasons. I never staked out any of those positions. In fact I literally said previously “There is no such thing as a perfectly moral war.”
But none of that changes the fact that, like it or not, militaries are necessary. They’re necessary because wars get started for immoral reasons. Because we can’t wish ourselves into a world where autocrats and fascists and nationalists and revanchists don’t exist. We can work to build that world, and we should. But it will take time, and we do not get the luxury of living without any means of stopping those people in the meantime.
You can’t be a progressive nation if you’re not a nation at all.