Thanks David,

Slightly missing the point: can you distinguish between an 'unjust war', a war of aggression against an unoffending country, and a 'just war', a war which the unoffending country fights to defend itself and to expel the aggressors ?

Yes ? No ?

No dodging now :)

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

I can't distinguish. I have changed my mind on learning more.

One example is the Texas War of Independence from Mexico. In school I thought it was reasonable for the Texans to want to be free from Mexico. Then I read a Mexican history of the US which told that Mexico abolished slavery in 1829, and the American settlers in Mexico wanted to keep slaves. I read Grant's Memoirs in which he thought the US Civil War was a punishment on the US for the Mexican War.

Another example is the Korean War. It was approved by a security council resolution before mainland China took its seat. The USSR abstained. It could have stopped when the forces were at the 38th parallel, but MacArthur wanted to advance up the peninsula, and China came in. I originally supported it. I now think that the US was suckered into that war because the USSR wanted the US to fight China.

We allied ourselves with the Communist tyranny to fight the Nazi tyranny and considered it a just war. If we had allied ourselves with the Nazi tyranny to fight the Communist tyranny we probably would have also considered it a just war. We fought the tyranny that we thought presented a greater danger at the time and allied ourselves with the less dangerous tyranny.

Dear Loudmouth,

As an American for most of my life I have unequivocally supported the American Revolution. I have read that the British had a treaty with the Indians which restricted European settlement west of the Alleghenys. The Abolitionist movement was on the move in England, and the planters in the southern states wanted to keep their slaves. If England had prevented US independence there probably would have been no Civil War, and the US would have probably eventually been like Australia achieving separation without great violence.

I once regarded the American Revolution as just. Now I'm not so sure. In any war some make out, and some don't. Those who make out are more liable to consider the war just.

Hi David,

Yes, I agree - sometimes it is hard to tell who is the aggressor and who the defender.

Texas was part of Mexico until what, 1848 ? I don't know if the US government initiated a war of aggression to invade it, but if so, then the Mexicans were quite within their rights to defend themselves, to fight a 'just war'. It's a pity they lost.

I suspect that you're right about the lead-in from the Mexican War to the US Civil War. In my view, the North, Lincoln's side, was fighting a 'just' war against the slave-holding states.

If North Korea attacked South Korea without much provocation, then objectively it was 'just' for the South to fight back, and to call on any support they liked. If one of their allies advanced to the Yalu, they would have had every right, on the principle of 'hot pursuit'. Whether MacArthur fired artillery across the Yalu into China, I don't know, but if he did, then China had some right to push into North Korea and eliminate the threat to its borders - on the same principle of 'hot pursuit'. Perhaps not to go as far as Seoul, but just to push the UN/US/South Koreans back from their border.

In the three-sided Second World War - the Fascists, the Allies, and the USSR - if we go back to which country attacked which other c country, then clearly the Nazis and Mussolini's fascists were fighting unjust wars, wars of aggression, while all those countries which were defending themselves had to fight just wars to repel their aggressors and liberate their countries.

So Ethiopians fought a just war to defeat the Italian fascists. The Allies fought just wars to liberate countries from the Nazis. Australia fought a just war to defeat the Japanese. The Japanese were fighting a huge and unjust war against China, Burma, Indochina, the Philippines, Malaya, the East Indies and Australia: it was right to fight back against them.

[TBC]

[continued]

But even in connection with the Second World War, it got complicated: the USSR attacked Finland early in 1939, over a demand to give it Karelia and better access to the sea(from memory). That was a war of aggression, an unjust war. From the Finns' point of view, even though they got help from the Nazis, it was a just war, to defend their country.

Earlier, when the Bolsheviks attacked Poland, around 1918-1920, the Polish resistance under Pilsudski constituted a just war. The USSR was fighting an unjust war, a war of aggression and invasion.

What do you reckon ? Can you distinguish just wars from unjust wars now ?

Cheers,

Joe

The complexities of war are presented in simplistic terms by the polititions. All sides see some justification for their actions. There used to be an old saying; When is a gorilla, a freedom fighter? When he is on your side. Who was right in the Punic Wars? The Roman or The Carthaginians, who knows and who cares, its all history. Its interesting George III known as 'Farmer' George was indeed one of Britains best loved monarchs ever. The "Americans" who sided with the British in the American War of Independence, and many did, were they traitors?