C
catholictiger
Guest
for me its simple if a peace treaty doesn’t look out for the common good or at-least attempt to look out for the common good of both the victors and the losers then it is unjust.
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
and as such…it sets the stage for the next war…and around and around we go…
Peace
James
J
Jocko_VT
Guest
I wound’t argue with any of this, James.
Though I’d add one important point. While the US couldn’t go about in the post-WW II era annexing territories overtly, it could do so covertly (by overthrowing and/or propping up governments). But this is part of the same strange context you’re describing.
G
GEddie
Guest
That was the problem with Versailles. The vanquished powers were not consulted; the victors simply rammed it down their throat. The world today is still having after effects from it.
ICXC NIKA
J
JRKH
Guest
Exactly. Wonderful point. This was the same thing that the USSR was doing and we wound up involved in a lot of what use to be called, “proxy wars” where the US would support one side and the USSR the other side…
What a mess…
Peace
James
J
Jocko_VT
Guest
Kind of makes me wonder if we’ve not been in a self-perpetuating unjust global war for the last hundred years!!
J
JRKH
Guest
Interesting thought…
I have a hard time putting it all on Versailles…though it certainly is a significant player.
The Russian Revolution is maybe the more significant -
It’s tough to sort through the historical interactions and possible courses…Might depend a little on what historical point of departure we take.
Peace
James
J
Jocko_VT
Guest
Certainly. Not that it’s Versailles’ fault (after all, WW I led to Versailles, and many narratives lead to WW I, and the US Congress’ opting out of the League of Nations didn’t help matters). Same with the Russian Revolution. Add a lot of oil in the Middle East and the Holocaust, and you’ve got the Cold War and militant Islam. It may not guarantee war, but it certainly isn’t a breeding ground for peace and justice!
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Hmmm, does the Catholic Church make this specific distinction?
Also, the U.S.A. was never directly attacked by Germany and yet joined in later. They were attacking Germany (and Japan) at least as much as they were defending themselves.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
I’ll address the Civil War quickly-the Justice or otherwise of the Civil War was incredibly complex-certainly, both sides were at fault at one time or another. With the caveat that I am a Northerner I tend, hesitatingly, to side with the North in terms of who had the better claim to war and who had the better goal. But this is incredibly muddied-the North’s motivations were highly mixed, and even their more “noble” motivations were sometimes based off of misconceptions.
And yes, during the war BOTH sides committed atrocities (another misconception is that it was only the North who committed what we would term today as war crimes). But as has been pointed out many times unjust actions committed in a war do not necessarily make the war unjust.
Further muddying the water is that ending slavery was not originally the point of the water-and yet the war definitely evolved into a war to end slavery once the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.
Figuring out the morality of the Civil War is a difficult thing. It was just in some ways and unjust in others. A great many wars are like this, but the Civil War in particular arose due to a very complex and varied number of circumstances all coming together at one time to make the perfect storm for a truly horrible war. Horrible-but fascinating to study.
So was the Civil War a Just War? N
And yes, during the war BOTH sides committed atrocities (another misconception is that it was only the North who committed what we would term today as war crimes). But as has been pointed out many times unjust actions committed in a war do not necessarily make the war unjust.
Further muddying the water is that ending slavery was not originally the point of the water-and yet the war definitely evolved into a war to end slavery once the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.
Figuring out the morality of the Civil War is a difficult thing. It was just in some ways and unjust in others. A great many wars are like this, but the Civil War in particular arose due to a very complex and varied number of circumstances all coming together at one time to make the perfect storm for a truly horrible war. Horrible-but fascinating to study.
So was the Civil War a Just War? N
F
FaithBuild18
Guest
It’s a mistake to think that defense = just war and aggression = unjust war. This is not what the Church teaches. If the Church taught that, then the Just War Theory would be a lot simpler than it is. There are instances in which aggression would be justified.
G
GEddie
Guest
I’m not certain that “just peace” is a useful term. Injustice is a human constant, whether peace or war conditions prevail. War can end some injustices (ie, US slavery), but it can cover others (the Holocaust).
ICXC NIKA
ICXC NIKA
F
FaithBuild18
Guest
I’ll be the odd man out and say that I think the majority of history’s wars were actually just wars… at least to one side.
People didn’t have much of a practical alternative to solving geographical/social conflicts in the ancient and mideval past other than going to war. That’s not to say that conduct was just, as other users have pointed out, often times (most of the time) it wasn’t, but the wars themselves I think can be justified.
catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine#.UHSu4S4mRJM
I thought this was a superb write up.
Also consider, wars are usually fought one of two ways. Either there is an aggressor and a defender, or there are two mutual aggressors. I think you can easily justify going to war if you’re defending off an aggressor, so for the bulk of history’s wars you can justify war for at least one side. Even those instances in which their were mutual aggressors, if you consider the intelligence available to societies and the diplomatic limitations of each era, you might be able to justify a handful of those wars as well using the Just War doctrine.
Go ahead, call me a neo-con or whatever other insults are out there for non-pacifists.
People didn’t have much of a practical alternative to solving geographical/social conflicts in the ancient and mideval past other than going to war. That’s not to say that conduct was just, as other users have pointed out, often times (most of the time) it wasn’t, but the wars themselves I think can be justified.
catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine#.UHSu4S4mRJM
I thought this was a superb write up.
Also consider, wars are usually fought one of two ways. Either there is an aggressor and a defender, or there are two mutual aggressors. I think you can easily justify going to war if you’re defending off an aggressor, so for the bulk of history’s wars you can justify war for at least one side. Even those instances in which their were mutual aggressors, if you consider the intelligence available to societies and the diplomatic limitations of each era, you might be able to justify a handful of those wars as well using the Just War doctrine.
Go ahead, call me a neo-con or whatever other insults are out there for non-pacifists.
G
GEddie
Guest
I would never insult a nonpacifist although I disagree with y’all.I’ll be the odd man out and say that I think the majority of history’s wars were actually just wars… at least to one side.
People didn’t have much of a practical alternative to solving geographical/social conflicts in the ancient and mideval past other than going to war. That’s not to say that conduct was just, as other users have pointed out, often times (most of the time) it wasn’t, but the wars themselves I think can be justified.
catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine#.UHSu4S4mRJM
I thought this was a superb write up.
Also consider, wars are usually fought one of two ways. Either there is an aggressor and a defender, or there are two mutual aggressors. I think you can easily justify going to war if you’re defending off an aggressor, so for the bulk of history’s wars you can justify war for at least one side. Even those instances in which their were mutual aggressors, if you consider the intelligence available to societies and the diplomatic limitations of each era, you might be able to justify a handful of those wars as well using the Just War doctrine.
Go ahead, call me a neo-con or whatever other insults are out there for non-pacifists.
ISTM that a war can only be just for one side, or unjust for both. If both sides acted justly, the war would not commence. That kind of one-sided justification is what JWT is about, IIUC.
ICXC NIKA
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
The Islamic Mujahadeen’s war against Soviet invaders was a just war to me. (In Afghanistan)
J
Jocko_VT
Guest
I think I’d agree with this. At the same time, I’m not so certain that US support of the Mujahideen was “a just war” for the US, given that it was based on ulterior motives rather than those of the Mujahideen.
J
JRKH
Guest
I don’t know…I have not studied the Church’s teaching on “just war”.
The United States declared war after Germany declared war on the U.S.
Considering what happened at Pearl Harbor and at Clark field in the Philippines what was continuing to happen there and a Guam and elsewhere in the Pacific…There is some question as to whether the Congress would have declared war on Germany if Germany had not done so first…
That said…The US was involved in a quasi naval war in the Atlantic in support of Great Britain and this was a factor in Germany deciding to go to war with the U.S.
As to how much attacking we did…Once the war, the aggression, is forced on you it is best to soundly trounce the enemy. Nothing on our side prevented Germany and Japan from surrendering long before they did…
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Which is actually the point of my post. In order for aggression to be justified the conditions of peace must be so intolerable as to make violent aggression the only recourse.
But then…
This could be phrased another way. The aggression begins long before the “war” in which case the war is not aggression at all, but is a defense against the already existing aggression.
Peace
James
L
lerapt78
Guest
And during the Spanish Civil War.
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
You may be right, Jocko. For the United States it was sort of a proxy war with it’s former nemesis the Russians.
Speaking of which… that proxy war fought in Southeast Asia where communist China and Russia supported North Vietnam and the U.S. and her long time allies supported South Vietnam was arguably an unjust war on the part of the U.S., China, and Russia.
Though… the Catholic dominated government and businesses of South Vietnam probably had good reason to fight. Maybe. The history of European colonialism and East Asian invasion to Vietnam probably never did much to promote justice, fairness, and meritocracy throughout the North and the South. But at least the French seemed to have left a greater heritage of stability, higher culture, and attractive architecture than the U.S. has in some of its neo-colonial exploitations. And something like Liberia and Monrovia, Liberia are a bit of a disgrace.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monrovia
The Spanish Crown did far better in Mexico and Florida and throughout various other regions of the United States and Latin America.
- Status