No. Your game is stupid and boring.
You seem to confuse expressing opinions with doing philosophy or having a discussion.
See, I can do this lazy shit also. But for what…?
I ask myself that all the time myself. I am convinced one day I will know the answer.
I’m with Serendipper on this one. I say this as a Jew. [there are lots and lots of conclusions by Pat Buchanan, however, with which I disagree.] I have no idea about what is meant by the oxymoron “righteous war.”
I do believe there may be such a thing as a just war; it would be of a nonviolent nature: mostly sabotage, fowling up plans of the invader; the Danish (and Swedish) Underground sort of measures.
There are these two necessary conditions (among others) for “a Just War.”
(1) Your country must be invaded.
(2) War must be the very last resort after everything else has been tried!
Neither of these conditions had been met before we, in the USA, entered World War II.
…Something to think about.
Where ethics are concerned, one can generally equate doing and being without conflating.
“I just kill on the job, I am a really good person. I just need to feel appreciated.”
Maybe somebody in the USA read Mein Kampf and understood what was at stake. You know, empathy for the Poles and Soviets who were scheduled to be exterminated.
The Soviets weren’t about to be exterminated. The German Nazi Army were so stupid that they didn’t realize their tank fuel would freeze up, be inadequate, for the Siberian weather, thus getting them immobilized in the midst of enemy territory.
War = organized mass-murder in the name of a noble cause.
War is complete madness, and cannot be rationally justified 
The wagers of violent warfare are inevitably bound to make some fatal mistake and do themselves in. This applies to those who violate every Ethical norm and principle such as Benedict Donald.
Let us not hijack the theme of the thread, though. What is your over-view of this eight-page pamphlet: myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/The%20 … ncepts.pdf
.
If the Soviets had lost, then they would have been exterminated except for the slave workers that the Nazis needed. As it is they lost 27 million lives.
Obviously bullshit. The unethical, violent and evil often win.
It’s not hijacking. This is the real ethics - people live and die based on the decisions that are made. No hypothetical case studies here. It’s real people lined up against real walls and shot with real bullets in reprisal for real resistance.
.
What is it that they win? A more-chaotic world - and eventually an extinction of the species of which they (or their heirs) are a member… because they did nothing to prevent Climate Change when there was still time to do so.
Life is not about winning and losing. It is about giving and receiving love.
I was a Conscientious Objector during the Korean War, and did time for it.
And politeness is not merely fashion; it is a way of expressing respect to another human being, simply for his being a human being. The Japanese Tea Ceremony has ritualized manners. I hold we would be better off if we adopted some such display of manners here, redesigned more for our own culture.
Comments?
That’s you.
My father-in-law was in the French Navy during WW2.
My grandfather was in a Nazi concentration camp.
My grandmother and father were lined up for Nazi reprisals. Every tenth person went to a concentration camp.
Do you get a prize or do I?
This isn’t a Tea Ceremony. This is the real shit.
People died. And thank God, that some Americans cared to risk their lives and to lose their lives for some principles that they believed to be right. And some Soviets as well … it would not have been possible without their sacrifice. They’re a tough bunch of bastards. Respect.
Here are some reviews of a book by Prof. Stanley that you may find interesting:
amazon.com/How-Fascism-Work … merReviews
The tile of the book, just out, is HOW FASCIISM WORKS.
It is truly educational and is highly-relevant today!!!
What say you?
What are you saying by posting this?
That opposition to nazism is the same as the politics of us versus them?
- if they were, would you then think it would be OK to enter the war? 2) It is inconcievable that the Soviets would not have lost more millions if the US had not entered the war. The German could have held fast in the West, and pushed into Russia with gusto. The enormous air, sea and artillary resources of the US sucked tremendous resources from the Germans, and they had to fight a very active two or more front war.
One isn’t justifying the war, one is justifying one’s role in relation to something. In the case of WW2, the war was already a war when the US entered. Were the French Underground wrong to wage a war against the German occupiers.
And notice that above, you are arguing against specific analyses of WW2. IOW it important for you to believe that the Soviets would have been OK without US intervention. But you must realize that even if you were right, in this particular instance (which I do not think you are), there will be other situations where horrible things will happen if no one intervenes. You own arguing that point entails that there are situations when it would be moral to enter a war. Otherwise you would not care about that point. It would not matter.
In the case of Hitler his mistake was taking on people who fought against him and had friends who fought against him and his military.
Actually I see people doing just fine out there who have acted with regularity immorally.
Do you not see people who have benefitted and continue to do so from their immoral choices? I mean, look at the Bush Administration. They made big bucks off their immoral wars.
Without US help, the war would have lasted much longer with more military casualties on both sides and significantly more Soviet civilian casualties. The Germans would have had more time to eliminate the Jewish population in the occupied territories and to starve the Slav civilians.
Probably the Soviets would have won in the end and liberated all of Europe.
If the ethics of US participation in WW2 is so complicated, even with hindsight and vast amounts of historical information, then how can anyone figure out the ethics of a current problem where we don’t have the benefit of hindsight? 
The point I would like to make is that the time to fight Hitler was between 1925 and 1932 - when he rose to power as Chancellor of Germany. By July of 1925, after having been sentenced to 4 years for treason, and being in jail for only nine months, he published Mein Kampf.
For details see: history.com/this-day-in-his … -published
Then the world should have been aware that he was a raving psychopathic maniac who must be stopped from rising up in the ranks of any government, let alone Germany’s. By 1925 the Nazi Party was an active group which included Rudolf Hess. The world should have taken measures to make the rivals of the Nazis more attractive to the German millionaires and power elite, as well as to the mass of the German people.
Perhaps something like The Marshall Plan ought to have been bestowed on Germany with the credit going to the political parties competing with the Nazi cult.
It was wrong to wait until 1941 for my country, the USA, to wage war against Hitler, the sick man; and his party, the Nazis. …By then it was very late!
The same is true these days in re the con-artist in the white house: people had written books about his racketeering life ten years ago. We should have known tthen about the money-laundering and how he was ‘married to the mob,’ as The New Republic expose phrased it later in a 2016 edition of the magazine. “The Mob” to which they refer is the Russian mafia.
amazon.com/Dangerous-Case-D … merReviews
amazon.com/Making-Donald-Tr … merReviews
When will we ever learn?
Ethics is like a mule. It wags its tail, but it never chews right.
1- Let’s say you are correct in your analysis. That the best thing would have been to do something earlier AND that this would have worked. But democracies make errors. They can miss opportunities. They are not infallible. So there it is 1941 and they realize that they should have acted sooner, seen and taken seriously the warning signs that earlier administrations did not. Might not going to war have been the best choice at that time? 2-we really have no idea that your plan, based on hindsight, would have worked or was so obvious then. You can say, they should have done X and that would have worked and there would be no war. But there is no way to see if your speculation is correct.
More importantly, was it moral for the French and other countries to fight back against the Germans. They engaged in war against occupiers. Should England also not entered the war?