Has there ever been a just war?

[Vouthon]

“We are armed and prepared to continue the battle against Catholicism,” declared the official Party newspaper, Volkische Beobachter in 1937, “until the final, frightful decision, until the point of total annihilation."

That was the Nazi’s main newspaper’s response to Pope Pius XI’s encyclical of 1937, Mit Brennender Sorge written in German (for the first time rather than the usual Latin) condemning Nazi ideology.

As early as 1925 Cardinal Pacelli (later Pius XII), read Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which was published that year and Pacelli told friends in diplomatic circles that a “new manifestation” of the anti-Christ has arisen, and he called Hitler “obsessed,” violent, ready “to walk over corpses” and destroy anything in his way.

 

[Vouthon]

Hitler did indeed invade Poland. What is most strange about WWII is that the Soviets invaded Poland just sixteen days after the Germans. The British and French declared war on Germany based on the fact they had an alliance with Poland for mutual defense. What is odd is that they did not declare war on the Soviets but rather allied with them.

The more I’ve studied WWII the more I’ve realized this was not the great holy war it was made out to be. In the end we gave half of Europe to the Soviets who were brutal murderers with a particular hatred of Christianity. It seems to me the Soviets were the most evil country in the war and the US, Britain and France supported them.

The British and French did not have the capacity to fight Germany and the Soviet Union, heck look how poorly France was able to resist Germany on its own (completely occupied and defeated by May 1940). Hence why the British could really do nothing to help China militarily against Japan in East Asia, until the Japanese attacked the US at Pearl Harbour and then British Singapore and Malaya. The Soviet Union was not an official member of the Axis either (Hitler would never let the Communist Slavs join it). Yes we all know how equally evil Stalin was and how brutal his rule (Gulag anyone?), however even he had an agreement with Hitler that Hitler (as ever) later broke, giving Russia a legitimate reason to defend its people against Nazi invasion in 1941, despite Stalin’s completely unjust occupation of part of Poland and attempts to do the same in Finnland.

The agreement with Poland had been to defend it in the event of German invasion, in other words the Allies finally decided to take the stand against Hitler that they backed down from when he illegitimately invaded and occupied Czechoslovakia in March 1939. The Molotov-Ribbontrop pact had shocked the world, however the imminent threat for most of Europe was then not the Soviets (as it would be later on) but the Nazis, who held practically all of the European continent by 1941 under its “New World Order”. And by then the USA, Britain and China etc. had no choice but to ally with the Soviet Union which was a most necessary force in helping to defeat Hitler’s Reich.

 

[Vouthon]

I also find these New York Times articles interesting:

On January 13, 1939, Pius XI met with a British delegation including Prime Minister Chamberlain and Viscount Halifax. The New York Times editorialized that the meeting, “was intended as a recognition of a moral alignment which unites those who strive to buttress the established moral order against a new worship of force, race or state”.

On February the 11, 1939, the day after Pius XI died, the New York Times reported: “He [Pius XI] told the British delegation exactly what he thought of reactionary regimes and of the resistance that the democracies must make to dangerous forces in the world. He talked of racial persecution…He turned to blessing his visitors. Almost all of them dropped to their knees, although they had previously only agreed to bow…They walked through the long halls, none of them speaking - Chamberlain, the Unitarian; Halifax, the Anglo-Catholic, and others who never dreamed they could ever be so deeply moved - and two of the delegation were in tears…”

Up until the day he died, Pius XI was preparing further attacks against Nazism (ie death bed notes revealed later by Pope John XXIII in 1959 likening Hitler’s methods to Nero)…[Joseph Bottum]

The “resistance” that the “democracies must make” against the dangerous forces behind “racial persecution”? Did that “resistance” not finally come in September 1939, after almost a decade of appeasement which had led Pope Pius XI to speak of a “Conspiracy of Silence” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_of_Silence_(Church_persecutions), the same year as Pope Pius XI’s death when Hitler invaded Poland and Britain and France went to war with Germany?

Methinks so.

 

[JerryZ]

I said “equally evil”, thats not good enough?

But radical right dictatorships are also evil and have killed their own citizens as well. Hitler I remind you was a far right dictator. In Germany there was no freedom of speach and children spied on their own parents.

And more recently a bishop was slaughted at the altar by a right-wing dictatorship.

I dislike all dictatorships equally, they are all in my estimation evil.

Hey don’t get me wrong I have come to the conviction that the extreme left and extreme right in the political spectrum actually converge on the same evils. There is no doub’t in my mind about that.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I said “equally evil”, thats not good enough?

But radical right dictatorships are also evil and have killed their own citizens as well. Hitler I remind you was a far right dictator. In Germany there was no freedom of speach and children spied on their own parents.

Hitler was not a right wing dictator, remember, he called his movement National Socialism? In Hitler’s Germany, the economy was under state control. You could own private property, but your use of it had to serve the interests of the state; otherwise it would be nationalized. In addition to this, wages and salaries had to be approved by the state.

The Nazis also favored eugenics which is remniscent of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.

The premise behind National Socialism is the same as that behind regular socialism, your rights come from the state.

The Nazis were not right-wingers, they were leftists who wanted to implement their racist ideas.

 

[andrewstx]

Hitler was not a right wing dictator, remember, he called his movement National Socialism? In Hitler’s Germany, the economy was under state control. You could own private property, but your use of it had to serve the interests of the state; otherwise it would be nationalized. In addition to this, wages and salaries had to be approved by the state.

The Nazis also favored eugenics which is remniscent of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.

The premise behind National Socialism is the same as that behind regular socialism, your rights come from the state.

The Nazis were not right-wingers, they were leftists who wanted to implement their racist ideas.

I was taught that in my HS government class by the Birch Society instructor, who could only have gotten away with it in ultra-conservative west Texas. He ignored the text and taught %100 Birch doctrine. HJe took us on unauthorised field trips where we drove our own cars. He also “smoked” his chalk. By him the communists were far right, and the facists far left.

Of course that is the exact opposite of the political perspective held by the huge majority. I did not buy it then when I was 17 yo and don’t buy it now.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I was taught that in my HS government class by the Birch Society instructor, who could only have gotten away with it in ultra-conservative west Texas. He ignored the text and taught %100 Birch doctrine. HJe took us on unauthorised field trips where we drove our own cars. He also “smoked” his chalk. By him the communists were far right, and the facists far left.

Of course that is the exact opposite of the political perspective held by the huge majority. I did not buy it then when I was 17 yo and don’t buy it now.

If you disagree with what I wrotes, perhaps you could list the facts that contradict my statement?

 

[andrewstx]

If you disagree with what I wrotes, perhaps you could list the facts that contradict my statement?

I shall do what I did in Sarge Sieferts government class, which I passed with an A. I wnet on all the field traps to the John Birch society library gave the anticipated anwers and left every word go in one ear and out the other.

Adios machoman

 

[shipwrkd]

The war of 1812 when the USA invaded Canada

The invasion of Canada is always just and happens every year…right around the time the fish start biting

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I shall do what I did in Sarge Sieferts government class, which I passed with an A. I wnet on all the field traps to the John Birch society library gave the anticipated anwers and left every word go in one ear and out the other.

Adios machoman

I don’t dislike you, but if you’re trying to make some sort of point, it isn’t working.

 

[tabycat]

If anyone invades this country, or any country in which I live, I am pretty certain of one thing. That they are not coming for MY stuff. They may come for the white house, they may come for Bill Gates Stuff or Warren Buffet’s stuff, but they are going to ignore MY stuff. So this is why I do not even fear a foreign invasion.

Should one happen, I would take up arms to defend the lives of myself, my family, and others should they be in jeapordy…but they are not coming to ‘sack’ or ‘plunder’ my goods or lands or belongings. Hence, I don’t fear invasion at all. Plus I simply am content in my prayer with God as my Lord and Savior so in general do not think of wars or violence or fear of such things.

I have been the victim of violent crime, but I do not ‘fear’ this either. In fact I have been the victime of violent crime more than once. And still do not fear it. I fear things most people don’t fear, and don’t fear most things that most people do fear.

So I think that the troops are going to keep marching by where I live and go for the nice big houses with lots of gold and jewels. Not my measly belongings.

God Bless,
Bill

So, you think that nobody would want your stuff? What if they want is your neigbor’s life and his wife and children (to be made into slaves)? You may think your belongings are ‘measly’, they may not be to someone who does not have as much as you have. One of the reasons you are free to say ‘I won’t go’ and choose not to defend the USA is others, like from enlisted men like Ira Hayes up through the rankes to the generals, were willing to put their lives on the line to defend this country and other countries… :knight1::knight2:

 

[tabycat]

No, Lincoln did not emancipate the slaves. The 13th amendment ended slavery.

I wouldn’t count the confederate war deaths because they did not fight to end slavery. I also wouldn’t count Germany deaths from WW2 when counting people that died to end Nazism.

I never said the number of casualties makes a war just or unjust.

Casualties from both sides of the Civil War is because all of them were considered Americans, not if the Civil War was just or unjust.

 

[tabycat]

Hitler did indeed invade Poland. What is most strange about WWII is that the Soviets invaded Poland just sixteen days after the Germans. The British and French declared war on Germany based on the fact they had an alliance with Poland for mutual defense. What is odd is that they did not declare war on the Soviets but rather allied with them.

The more I’ve studied WWII the more I’ve realized this was not the great holy war it was made out to be. In the end we gave half of Europe to the Soviets who were brutal murderers with a particular hatred of Christianity. It seems to me the Soviets were the most evil country in the war and the US, Britain and France supported them.

From what I’ve read, and remember, General Patton, if allowed, would have taken Berlin and went on to Moscow and would have been knocking on Stalin’s door. Patton did not like Hitler OR Stalin.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I shall do what I did in Sarge Sieferts government class, which I passed with an A. I wnet on all the field traps to the John Birch society library gave the anticipated anwers and left every word go in one ear and out the other.

Thank you for adding absolutely nothing to this discussion.

Adios machoman

My username is not meant to be a pathetic attempt at sounding tough. It is a reference to one of my favorite books, Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. The quote in my signature is from the same book. It is especially appropriate for this discussion.

 

[JIB]

I shall do what I did in Sarge Sieferts government class, which I passed with an A. I wnet on all the field traps to the John Birch society library gave the anticipated anwers and left every word go in one ear and out the other.

Adios machoman

Congratulations on accepting defeat in an internet argument. This must be the first time this has happened in the history of ever.

 

[andrewstx]

I don’t dislike you, but if you’re trying to make some sort of point, it isn’t working.

I am trying to make no point, and I realise this forum is populated mostly by people who represent the far right.
But that is not me, and I cannot afford to be since I am poor from a stroke that made me unable to work.

I think many decide ther philosophy first, and then later look at the teaching of the church, amnd if it disagrees tend in great part to ignore it.

Some like to point out the church condemns commnism and that is true. The same individuals ignore the church equally condemns laissez-faire in the same encyclycal.

Ayn Rand was extremely immoral, but many follow her philosphy.

 

[sandomenico]

Hitler was a dictator. The larger political spectrum does not extend between fascism and socialism, as some may think; rather, it runs from dictatorship (the total rule of a single man) to anarchy (the lack of any political order). Fascism and Socialism are the right and left pegs of the totalitarian spectrum which seeks total control of the individual by the state through different means.

Lincoln was a godly man, but not necessarily a man of God.

It seems implied that because the Church declared the Crusades, they were just. This is not the case; the Church could declare an unjust war because She is not protected from doing so. That is not to say the Crusades were unjust, but that they could have been.

A just war meets all of these requirements: there must be grave cause to fight, war must be the last resort, there must be a serious prospect of success, and the evil of war must not produce evils greater than those to be averted by war.

In all efforts of this kind, as Aquinas tells us, peace must be the goal of war.

 

[Almagore]

I’ve read some articles and maybe even a history book that said the same thing. That Lincoln freed the slaves as a tactic to separate Britain from the South. Britain was the main buyer of the South’s Cotton and therefore the South’s main source of income. After thinking about this for several years I don’t believe that theory.

I’ve read articles that talked about how Lincoln hated slavery and when you think about it, that was why the South succeeded from the Union. Lincoln had been elected President and the South was afraid that Slavery would be declared illegal.

 

[Almagore]

I know it is the Churches teaching that a just war must be the last resort and ,of course, I don’t know what was in the mind of the Church leaders that formulated that criteria, but I can see problems with it. One of the big problems with WW2 is that because of the passivity of Britain and the USA we waited too long to go to war against Hitler. If we would have gone to war against Hitler after he invaded the 1st or 2nd country, we could have easily defeated him and saved countless lives and much suffering.

Was waiting until Germany defeated all of Europe, waiting until war was the last resort or was it just plain wishful thinking? By waiting until Hitler had all of Europe’s manufacturing capacity and the European labor force for slave labor, Britain and the USA put the ability of the Allies to defeat Hitler in jeopardy? We almost lost WW2 to the Germans! What a catastrophe that would have been and how much more suffering there would have been if Germany defeated Britain and the USA!

One of the lessons that some of us learned (But not all of us) that if a tyrant like Hitler starts attacking and taking over small countries near them that that aggressive country must be stopped immediately, before they gain so much money and war material manufacturing ability that they may be able to defeat us. That was the case with Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Even though he had invaded Kuwait and had plains to invade Saudi Arabia, many influential people in the USA insisted that more negotiation should have been tried and that The USA is a war mongering nation! Not so.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’ve read some articles and maybe even a history book that said the same thing. That Lincoln freed the slaves as a tactic to separate Britain from the South. Britain was the main buyer of the South’s Cotton and therefore the South’s main source of income. After thinking about this for several years I don’t believe that theory.

I’ve read articles that talked about how Lincoln hated slavery and when you think about it, that was why the South succeeded from the Union. Lincoln had been elected President and the South was afraid that Slavery would be declared illegal.

Yes, they were. This was Southern hysteria. Lincoln never planned to make slavery illegal, but instead planned to outlaw it in the territories in the hope it would die a slow death. The great tragedy of the South is that they thought Lincoln a radical when he was anything but.

Lincoln specifically (and he admits this himself, in writing) waited until after the Union came off looking good in a major battle (Antietam) before issuing the Emancipation Proclamation because he did not want it to look like a desperation tactic. It was a very shrewd move, not only because of the reasons you said but also because more and more Southern slaves deserted as a result, crippling the South further. Plus, the way it was worded meant that key border states were unaffected, which was extremely important.

It’s true that the Proclamation virtually guaranteed the passing of the 13th amendment. But a famous Lincoln quote goes along the lines of, “If I can save the Union by freeing slaves I will, and if I can save it by keeping slaves I will.”

And finally, while Lincoln opposed slavery, he wasn’t exactly a civil rights leader or an abolitionist. One plan that he had was to gather up a group of black people and ship them off to Africa to start their own country. He did this-the country is still around today and is called Liberia. It was doomed to disaster, and indeed that is what happened, but besides that you must admit that while he meant well there was a certain amount of subconscious prejudice in wanting to ship a race of people off of the continent.