Topic: Are there good sides in a war? - page 6. (Read 2575 times)
In some conflicts I trust there is not an amazing and an evil aspect, however taking international warfare 2 as instance it is very clear there is a superb and an evil facet. to look this you can not take all the previous ancient of the international locations worried. Take most effective their movements towards the currently conflict in consideration. otherwise it is going to be like blaming a grandson for his grandfather mistakes...*POSTING all over again because the last submit become CENSORED!
The best "correct" element approximately war is whilst it ends.
war manner a variety of distress and dying for a variety of humans, but now and again war is a essential evil. it could quit oppression, tyranny, and injustice or create an surroundings thereof.
essentially, whether or not a particular war is a "correct" component depends on which aspect your ancestors have been on and how long after the unique battle it's miles.
war manner a variety of distress and dying for a variety of humans, but now and again war is a essential evil. it could quit oppression, tyranny, and injustice or create an surroundings thereof.
essentially, whether or not a particular war is a "correct" component depends on which aspect your ancestors have been on and how long after the unique battle it's miles.
There is no good in the war. Killed or killed. Usually war is the policy of the rulers of a country for the purpose of something.
The Nazis had been belligerent s looking to result in the racial purity of the sector through genocide. some Western Allied squaddies commited struggle crimes right here and there but this become now not condoned by means of their superiors. The Soviets made struggle crimes a coverage but they did not consider in genocide or destroying other human beings for the advantage of the Russians, no matter the policy of Russification.
Hi there. It depends how do you look on this situation. If war can be avoided, there is better to do everything in a peaceful way. With no blood waste. But if war should happen, and you can not do anything else, it could be a good side, because it is the only way to end a conflict.
If people turn out to be good during the war, there will never be a war, which is good.
Yup those china shops in Dresden were a key element in Hitler's masterplan. While many elements of the WAllied air campaigns were courageous and brilliant (such as CAP over the jet airfields and knocking out the bridges and railways) there were malicious and vengeful actions like killing civilians because "they killed some of ours". I agree with the basic idea that all war is evil and to be entered into with reluctance. Once you're there you need to win so evil becomes mandatory. That said there has to be a point when the game isn't woirth the candle. The Germans reached it in 1918 when they caved, but in 1945 Hitler died before he'd surrender, and his final plan was to make Germany almost uninhabitable. SO there are levels of evil.
There are no good sides in war. We as humanity should love and care for each other, not fight against each other.
Those fighting might have the good sides after all they are all humans.
We could say that war is bad but the results sometimes could be good. For example, the US Civil War caused an end to slavery in that country. World War II ended the Holocaust. Wars can also lead to technological advances that help society.
Wow, a great question.
When i was studying at a university, we had debates in history class about the war - the positive and negative sides. I had to defend the point of view that war is good.
Well, it looked challenging, but turned out that throughout history war was moving progress ahead and a good portion of inventions and progress first came as war weapons or as aid for armed forces. Later they were converted to peaceful goals. Medicine, machines, explosives and so on.
I know that is not the question of this topic, but you know this old saying: "the right one is the one who won", because you know, the winning side has to write the history. So I guess war or any conflict is inevitable - like it is inevitable that animals eat each other. Maybe there will be beter ways to solve conflicts than killing each other in future - I hope so.
Soviets and japanese both had their verisions of history - where they were very right.
Maybe UN is the good side - but it is not the side at all)
I guess that's a good point. I was just thinking of the effect of war during a war. There certainly have been some good technologies developed for war. I found a list of some technologies developed during WWII. They include the dynamo-powered torch, the Jerrycan, pressurised cabins in planes, penicillin, radar, jet engines, nuclear power, and computers. There are all very important developments. For some reason, it doesn't seem like militaries are making as many breakthroughs as they used. Is this true? What technologies have been developed recently "thanks" to war? When i was studying at a university, we had debates in history class about the war - the positive and negative sides. I had to defend the point of view that war is good.
Well, it looked challenging, but turned out that throughout history war was moving progress ahead and a good portion of inventions and progress first came as war weapons or as aid for armed forces. Later they were converted to peaceful goals. Medicine, machines, explosives and so on.
I know that is not the question of this topic, but you know this old saying: "the right one is the one who won", because you know, the winning side has to write the history. So I guess war or any conflict is inevitable - like it is inevitable that animals eat each other. Maybe there will be beter ways to solve conflicts than killing each other in future - I hope so.
Soviets and japanese both had their verisions of history - where they were very right.
Maybe UN is the good side - but it is not the side at all)
Depending on the matter at hand, I might agree there are good sides in a particular war. If a side's interest is detrimental to a large percentage of people then they are the bad side. But on the long run wars are not ever good.
War means evil. But from every side there are good and bad guys.
However all wars sooner or later will end. And all experience will be useful for evolution.
However all wars sooner or later will end. And all experience will be useful for evolution.
I think not, because in a war there are only casualties and destruction.
War for me has no good sides , war always leave people desolate , crippled economy ,hunger and starvation and render people homeless.. War is a bad thing... There are no good sides in war.
I read in the net that some good sides is the development technologies
Wow, a great question.
When i was studying at a university, we had debates in history class about the war - the positive and negative sides. I had to defend the point of view that war is good.
Well, it looked challenging, but turned out that throughout history war was moving progress ahead and a good portion of inventions and progress first came as war weapons or as aid for armed forces. Later they were converted to peaceful goals. Medicine, machines, explosives and so on.
I know that is not the question of this topic, but you know this old saying: "the right one is the one who won", because you know, the winning side has to write the history. So I guess war or any conflict is inevitable - like it is inevitable that animals eat each other. Maybe there will be beter ways to solve conflicts than killing each other in future - I hope so.
Soviets and japanese both had their verisions of history - where they were very right.
Maybe UN is the good side - but it is not the side at all)
When i was studying at a university, we had debates in history class about the war - the positive and negative sides. I had to defend the point of view that war is good.
Well, it looked challenging, but turned out that throughout history war was moving progress ahead and a good portion of inventions and progress first came as war weapons or as aid for armed forces. Later they were converted to peaceful goals. Medicine, machines, explosives and so on.
I know that is not the question of this topic, but you know this old saying: "the right one is the one who won", because you know, the winning side has to write the history. So I guess war or any conflict is inevitable - like it is inevitable that animals eat each other. Maybe there will be beter ways to solve conflicts than killing each other in future - I hope so.
Soviets and japanese both had their verisions of history - where they were very right.
Maybe UN is the good side - but it is not the side at all)
Life on not just black and white it's various shades of grey and just like that war also has various aspects to it.you can't just paint everything back and white.throughout human history various wars have been fought and the one thing they had in common was the destruction that they carried with them.wars have liberated people and they have also enslaved them .the one statement I think holds true throughout history is that the victor writes history according to themselves .for a child it's doesn't matter who wins if their families dies that war is bad for them but for a man freedom is more important than their lives.
I don't think if they're good sides in war, war is not good cause many people could die and many children will lost their parents, let us have a peaceful environment let love each other.
People often talking about how USA was the good and Japan was the evil in World War 2, but when you see the history of every country involved, you start to find hard to take sides in any conflict, even though I hate nazis I can't see the Russians or Brittish or French as the good side, those were all imperialistic countries that killed and enslaved millions of people before Hitler, and kept doing so after he was gone. I believe one the biggest reasons for Hitler's rise into power was exactly Great Britain and France foreigner politics.
With regards to the Second World War and almost every other war, the aggressor is the one who brought the war and therefore the bad side, the Japanese did a preemptive strike on the USA though they were not officially in the war. Their other choice was to stop invading other countries during their aggressive global expansion attempts. Japan's actions were condemned by the League of Nations so they withdrew from the organization and continued their efforts. The US thought they were still negotiating in good faith with Japan when the attack on Pearl Harbor played out. I get that just from a strategic standpoint, the only way to continue their world conquest was to control the Pacific and to do that they had to take out the US Pacific fleet so their only chance was the element of surprise but saying they had no other choice isn't really accurate IMHO. They were pretty clearly the aggressors in the conflict so they had plenty of chances to end things peacefully.
Jump to: