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.
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.