What historically-considered war atrocities do you think were justified?

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,027
Spain
#51
The moral status of spying and covert activity - a difficult subject that deserves to be discussed in a separate thread. I don't think that such activity is necessarily cowardly or immoral; in fact some of the cativities by the French Resistance required courage of the very highest kind.
I´ve never said spies are cowards.. in fact.. they are very courage people. they have the 5 morning courage!!! But ye espionage is amoral (not inmoral). Well more than the French Resistance I would say the Yugoslavian or Russian or Greek Resistence... thougher and hardest than the French Reistance. But this is not the thread.

What I want to say it is Miss Cavell ´s execution was moral and legal according with the Laws of Wars.. as Mata - Hari. Our Century is coward.. very much...and amoral... I don´t know if we are cowards because we are amoral or we are amoral because we are cowards...but we are both!
In 1915 people believed what they were doing (both Miss Cavell as the German Generals).. courage people believed in their causes... today nobody believe in nothing...We have plumbed such depths than a little dwarf as ISI or Al Qaeda... looks to us as a Giant!
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,591
Sydney
#52
On the difference between WW2 Eastern and Western front ,
the German Army applied the conventional rules of war in the West while explicitly excluding the Eastern Front from such nicety
from the first days , the German Army behaved in a murderous manner in a spirit of genocide ,
this was not isolated incident ,it was army policy and set the stamp of utmost barbarity on the conflict
 
Jul 2017
167
USA
#54
Bombing and killing of Germans at the end of WWII was justified because German citizens were terrorists in large numbers. US Killing of the Vietnamese communists as well was justified because they were terrorists. I don't care how many died.
Nuclear bombing of Japan was not justified in my opinion because those were weapons of mass destruction, and the Japanese were the aggressors and not terrorists.

Killing of civilians can be justified if most of them are terrorists, or support terrorists.
It boils down to whether we are dealing with terrorists or not in my opinion. If the whole nation is a terrorist nation, not committed to stability, sovereignty, integrity but committed to violence to achieve political aims, then the whole nation is subject to extermination.

The tricky part is the decision making because it can happen that propaganda hypes up someone as a terrorist, and it turns out they were not, they were simply fighting for sovereignty and integrity. So, the decision making must be critical and measured.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,027
Spain
#55
Bombing and killing of Germans at the end of WWII was justified because German citizens were terrorists in large numbers. US Killing of the Vietnamese communists as well was justified because they were terrorists. I don't care how many died.
Nuclear bombing of Japan was not justified in my opinion because those were weapons of mass destruction, and the Japanese were the aggressors and not terrorists.

Killing of civilians can be justified if most of them are terrorists, or support terrorists.
It boils down to whether we are dealing with terrorists or not in my opinion. If the whole nation is a terrorist nation, not committed to stability, sovereignty, integrity but committed to violence to achieve political aims, then the whole nation is subject to extermination.

The tricky part is the decision making because it can happen that propaganda hypes up someone as a terrorist, and it turns out they were not, they were simply fighting for sovereignty and integrity. So, the decision making must be critical and measured.
The killing of germans at the end of WW2 was a coward and criminal act (as coward act was too the german killings in Poland, Yugoslavia, Russia etc etc).. that it was not judged only because allied won the war... but the history judge them as criminals... and the same about Vietnam... another coward attack... bombing civil populations... not only it is a crime from 1899 beside one stupid.. USA lost the War... and the communist won all their goals.. when the moral reason (at early) was in South Vietnam and SEATO.. but USA played so stupid...they comitted so much mistakes..,that made the "evils" (communist, and I agree) became the "goods"...that the agressors (Communist) looked the assaulted and the war became a fight between the Vietnam people and the US A Imperialism (When USA lacked of any strategic interest in Vientnam)... Yes, USA were so stupid, idiotic, and arrogant that they made people who were NOT communist join North Vietnam ... because it was no longer a struggle between communism and freedom ... but between Yankee imperialism and the Vietnamese people. Vietnam War or how to lost a War.. when the reason was in your side . + 1 for Johnson, Westmoreland and all those genii....

About HIroshima and Nagasaki I agree with you.
 
Feb 2016
4,171
Japan
#56
Quite. Britain was a bit more savvy.
A German woman would have been jailed.

This has presidency in Countess (Constance) Markievicz ... an Irish rebel in 1916, captured having taken up arms against Britain to aid her enemies. She was alleged to have murdered an unarmed policeman and wounded a British soldier.

She was sentenced to death but wisely had her sentence reduced to imprisonment. Solely because she was a woman.
 
Sep 2018
37
America
#57
The subjugation of the Plains Indian tribes wasn`t really avoidable. Contrary to Hollywood portrayals of Indians on the Great Plains as being gentle hippies in harmony with nature, who only waged wars by riding by and tapping each-other with sticks, these tribes were a brutal warrior culture whose manhood was defined by seizing horses, women, and scalps. An agrarian society with burgeoning industry cannot tolerate a warlike, nomadic raiding culture on its borders.
 
Nov 2009
3,865
Outer world
#58
I've always thought that the unrestricted submarine warfare the Germans waged up to the sinking of Lusitania was entirely justified by the British blockade (an atrocious tactic but a perfectly legitimate and effective one) and by the peculiar characteristics of early u-boot.
A caveat though is that my justification does not include hospital ships or passenger liners or any ship not related to the war effort.
 
Jun 2013
429
Connecticut
#59
My, my! All this angst!! It's simple.
You start a war, you kill the people you consider the enemy, you take it up a notch and butcher civilians and wontonly destroy everything physical then you're a war criminal because the atrocities are the crime.
The people you attacked come after you with a vengence. What they do to you is not an atrocity. Even if they crucified every one of the attackers on the road back to the capital, it is not an atrocity. It's redemption. That's how sacred it is. It is a sacred act against the profane existence of the attacker.
An historical example? WW II is mentioned lots. What happened to the Axis powers should be considered a stroke of luck on their part. For what they did they literally gaily danced away in history. The dance pass they held even had free drinks and food included. That's how lucky they were. We call that "****-luck" today.
 
#60
American soldiers murdering captured prisoners during the Korean War during their retreat from the Chosin Reservoir.

There was no practical way to keep them prisoner without endangering U.S. efforts to escape and to release them would've given an immediate manpower boost to pursuing communist forces.
 

Similar History Discussions