It is an arbitrary distinction. I’m explaining my viewpoint.

It’s so interesting!

I feel like I hear a lot more about how Desert Storm was the massive shift to the general public getting to see the horror of war. It’s absolutely true that there was a step change! I think it’s valuable to include WWI in this discussion because adding to your point about the machine gun the change in war technology fundamentally changed who was surviving the war and how, and what stories and life changing injuries they brought home.

It’s tragic and world changing if your loved one goes off to war and dies, but that’s also very abstract. Having them come back and either:

• re-enter society with visible bodily damage
• require constant care for the rest of their lives
• seem to be okay in body but come hope deeply changed by the trauma

really change how the people who weren’t there view the reality of war. Even for myself, it was hearing my grandmother sobbing as she recalled atrocities in WWII (she was a child) that really shaped how I view war.

I find it hard to digest that people in north america appear to have become less opposed to wars (specifically the wars of the US) than they did in the 2000s (which are the first wars I have adult memory of). If I had to guess I would say it’s a mix of overwhelm with everything else and that war is back to being more remote. I’m sure the people who are being droned still think it’s horrific.

Also US centric but I went to the Atlanta History Center a few years back. I am not from the states. The way the US Civil war was presented was so different from what I had learned. This makes sense, especially as canada uses the US as a shield for their own atrocities, and likes to emphasize how chattel slavery was outlawed here sooner. What I didn’t expect was the exhibit on how the horror of war left such a mark on the population. It was very enlightening!

You may not have seen my edit:

Is it good someone stopped the Nazis from genocide? Yes.

Did armed resistance to the Nazis from state military start because of the genocide? No.

Why countries entered WWII is critical to my position and key to how I view the ethics here. My position is that countries are happy to allow people to think they entered to war to stop the Holocaust because it buys them goodwill. If they can defend their new wars by saying “These guys are just like the Nazis, we are being liberators again!” people are less likely to push back.

This isn’t about moral purity. I don’t think violence is never justified. I am not aware of an example there a state started a war with another state to stop the killing of people because of their worldview, sexuality, or colour of their skin. That’s it’s. That’s my whole statement.

Maybe you don’t define military the same way I do (in that it has to be attached to a state). That’s fine. I have no interest in arguing over the definition because it’s a distraction from us understanding each other. We can just accept our definition is different (if that’s the case).

You’ve since added the requirements that the invader needed to state their genocidal intention beforehand, and that both countries need to be recognized states that have some as-yet unstated time period of independence.

No I haven’t?

It’s 100% possible I misunderstood the person I was replying to, I have no problem acknowledging that. I took their comment to be a question of if it’s morally correct to defend a border with a military if the invading military is doing so because they think you “don’t deserve to live because of your world view, your sexuality, your skin colour?”

If you interpret that differently then we are discussing different things and not arguing the same point.

I do think that an army/militia and and military are different. I think a military needs a state, by definition. I think the fact that the military enforces the will of a state is what makes it evil and what makes it so easy to present war as just and self defense while hiding the motive of imperialism.

Since you’re constantly shifting the goalposts, it’s impossible to meet your requirements…

For added clarity this is what I think is going on in our exchange:

My original statement was that I am not aware of a war that was started between two militaries that was one military defending it’s people from another who wanted to wipe them out for their viewpoints, sexuality, colour of their skin.

You replied saying wars result in genocide. I don’t disagree with that. That’s still not what the comment you were replying to (this one for clarity) was saying.

It is not reasonable for you to tell me what I meant the same way it’s not reasonable for me to tell you what you mean by yours.

You are expecting me to discuss your point, which is that wars result in genocide, whereas I am continuing to discuss the idea that wars start as a response to genocide.

I don’t understand why you would come into a conversation, reply telling me I am wrong and demand I defend a point I wasn’t trying to make.

I made the mistake of thinking you were raising new points to support the idea that I was wrong about what I was discussing, but I was clearly wrong about that.

I am genuinely curious to know who is framing the war between Russia and Ukraine as genocide. My understanding is Ukraine views it as imperialism and Russia views it as liberating people who are Russian from Ukrainian rule (if we are talking about Crimea/Donbas) or stopping Ukraine from doing some sort of evil, I’m not totally clear on this one.

First Congo War is debatable but before I expand on that I want to make sure you understand the war happened after the 1994 genocide? You are referring to a second genocide? (Not debating if the mass killing during the war counted as genocide, just wanting to make sure we are talking about the same thing).

Bosnia genocide I don’t think I need to reply further because I agree it wasn’t started to do genocide.

East Timor: disagree. There was a civil war because of how the colonial power left (one could say by design) and Indonesia saw it as an annexation opportunity. It wasn’t a war between two established states in response to intention to commit genocide.

Bangladesh: I don’t think I know who the military who opposed Pakistan was?

WWII: My point has been no allied power cared about liebestraum until it threatened their own borders/colonial interests. If we go back to the comment I was replying to, the person was talking about one country defending itself against another because they thought they didn’t deserve to live because of their world view, sexuality or colour of skin. I suppose if you stretch world view into believing they should be allowed to live their life in peace then sure that applies. I can’t argue with that one.

No, I answered your question.

Edit: I can be more clear.

Is it good someone stopped the Nazis from genocide? Yes.

Did armed resistance to the Nazis from state military start because of the genocide? No.

I think it’s also important to note here that the previous poster is creating an unrealistic standard by insisting that genocide even be in the picture.

I didn’t bring up genocide, the person you are respond to did.

I really like this response.

Sorry, I don’t think I should buy into myths about how the regular people in enemy countries want to eat babies or whatever so that rich people can have more 🤷‍♀️

Would the world be better off today if people fought the Nazis earlier and not only when it threatened their imperialism and no one used it to further their imperialism? Yes. But that wasn’t what we were discussing.

I was asking because I don’t know of any. I recognize I don’t know everything and would be happy to learn more history.

I’m not saying genocides don’t happen. Of the ones I can think of, the victims were not able to form militaries to fight back. Genocide requires a power imbalance.

Are organized rebellions (like the Hutu in 1959) military? I would argue they are not because they were not the state. I think that’s an important distinction. Being the state sanctioned group which remains at least somewhat assembled during peace carries special weight.

Maybe you could say Hamas et al cause wars in response to genocide but again I don’t think they strictly fall into a state military.

The rich need cannon fodder.

When we talk about voluntary enlistments they typically rely on mythology of noble and valiant warriors and honorable deaths, or the military represents a path out of poverty.

It’s really eye opening to read accounts of civil war and WW1 soldiers who found out how brutal war actually was.

I can’t think of a war that happened because of this. Please don’t say WW2 because even the history books don’t claim it was to stop the atrocities.

I went to parliament on my way home today (for science) and didn’t smell anything, maybe they fixed it?

(lol)

It’s Lyon but it didn’t smell to me so idk 🤷‍♀️

I didn’t take the photo in the post but here are a few of mine