Conquest Involving Nations

  • Thread starter Thread starter RHIC12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RHIC12

Guest
So, purely hypothetical question, and honestly, this question might fit more into the Casual Discussion thread more quite honestly, lol.

But anyways, if a nation were to enter into a just war, and the only way to completely eliminate the threat was to conquer every part of a nation, and after the war, the nation was too unstable for self rule and so, for a time, they rule the conquered nation, would that be moral?
 
This sounds oddly specific. Do you have a certain nation in mind?
 
Interesting topic. I’d say it could be moral, at least for a time.

The occupation of the Axis powers by the Allies at the end of WW2 (you know, the big one) comes to mind. You pretty much can’t defeat an enemy without occupying the land, and years of war had left the Axis nations in ruins and, particularly Germany and Italy, open to guerilla campaigns, civil war and Communist influence.
 
So, would it be immoral for a country to hold on to the territory if they wanted to be independent in a just war? What about if the conquered nations wanted to integrate into the conquering nation?

Also, I take it that Rome’s conquests weren’t moral, then/
 
Rome’s conquests weren’t moral, but still played a key role in God’s plan for salvation of all mankind.
 
You have to be careful with statements like this. The conquest of the Aztecs brought with it enslavement, ethnic cleansing, and European diseases.
 
The Aztecs deserved to be conquered just like the Canaanites. Had Spain not conquered Mexico who knows how many countless lives would have to suffer at the hands of the Aztecs, whom also enslaved and genocided people on top of human sacrifices and paganism.
 
Elias said:
Had Spain not conquered Mexico who knows how many countless lives would have to suffer at the hands of the Aztecs, whom also enslaved and genocided people on top of human sacrifices and paganism.
Click to expand...
But since it was Spain who enslaved and committed genocide, that’s perfectly fine, right?

Phew.
 
No, but I think this is the point where we need to distinguish between what the Church teaches, and how individuals acted. The conquest of the Aztecs, as far as stopping human sacrifice, enslavement, and genocide, was a good thing in and of itself. However, for the Spaniards (and others) to resort to slavery etc goes against Church teaching, and I’d argue set the stage for some of the negative sentiments we’re seeing today against Mother Church.
 
RHIC12 said:
So, would it be immoral for a country to hold on to the territory if they wanted to be independent in a just war?
Click to expand...
As a temporary measure, I would think so. Like, for a few years like the western Allies did after WW2. Not like the USSR did after WW2 when they occupied most of central Europe for almost half a century long after the threat of resurgent fascism had disappeared and long after those countries had been reconstructed.
RHIC12 said:
What about if the conquered nations wanted to integrate into the conquering nation?
Click to expand...
I am struggling to think of an example, but sure, if a country actually wants to be absorbed into another country, that is for them to determine between themselves. Like, if Germany had said after the war that it wanted to become part of France, that would be for Germany and France to determine between themselves. Closest I can think of that actually happened might be Gibraltar? Colonized by the British but chooses not to be independent.
RHIC12 said:
I take it that Rome’s conquests weren’t moral, then/
Click to expand...
Historically speaking, they were moral by the standards that people lived by at the time. They wouldn’t be what Christians would call moral.
 
It seems conquest of Germany in WWII and the subsequent occupation and rule of the British, Us, and French zones for 4 years to meet the descruption if the OP. And I consider it was just.
 
Ruling the nation afterward would only be moral if the intention of the ruler(s) was to help the nation get back on its feet so its people could begin to govern themselves, again. That would mean helping build up their economy and helping to prevent or remedy any famine as a result of the conflict, keeping doctors and nurses there to cure the sick and heal the injured, and prevent the spread of disease., and provide whatever other help is urgently needed at the time.

Once the vanquished nation has been restored, its government may be required to pay reparations to the victorious nation as compensation for causing the war, and to help restore the vast resources that would have been used to eliminate the threat. That would be fair, providing a workable arrangement was agreed upon that wouldn’t pose a hardship for the people of the nation that has just gotten back on its feet – an installment plan with reasonable payments over a reasonable amount of time, with provision for extensions should the unforeseeable happen that would cause the newly restabilized nation, through no fault of its own, to fall behind in the payments.

Once this has all been accomplished, the rulers should pull out and the new government of the conquered nation (which would then become a free nation again) sign a peace pact with the conquering nation so as to avoid future conflicts between them. This could take a very long time, but eventually, with the charitable help of the stronger nation, and with mutual cooperation, relations could improve and normalize once stability is regained.

Pie in the sky, perhaps, but that would be just and moral, in my opinion.
 
So the people, once their country is restabilized, can govern themselves again, and elect their own leaders. We should be there to assist and provide aide as needed, but we shouldn’t remain as rulers. (That’s assuming we were the conquering nation – or whichever nation it is).
 
Last edited:
You need to study the theory of subsidiarity. There most certainly is something wrong with a government expanding it’s power over more people that is not part of it’s nation.
 
Yes there were Spanish conquistadors who enslaved Indians, but it was against the intent of the Castilan government. When did they commit genocide? We Americans did that, but not the Spanish. Simple prrif: look at the predominant skin color in Latin America.
 
I said, “Historically speaking, …” You will not find a serious academic historian who judges the morality of another period of time or another society by our own standards. Cecil Rhodes being racist and colonizing much of Africa: normal for somebody who lived in the second half of the 19th century. Henry VIII having two of his six wives beheaded: not normal for a 16th-century European king.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top