Is it morally wrong to not support the troops?

Post Reply New Topic

Back in the 60s and 70s, being against the war meant you were against the troops as well. While i condemn spitting in their faces, insulting them, etc, I can't say i support the troops. I don't hate them or anything, most of them are just trying to get into college or believe they are fighting for the greater good, but the truth is they're not.

IMO if you support the troops to some extent you must support the war. Saying you support them and idolize them but then saying you are against the war makes no sense. I think it's just become politically incorrect to say you're anti-military these days. People see it as insulting to the troop's families or whatever. Frankly i think it's driven mostly by successful Reagan-era hawkish propaganda.

I support the troops as far as not wanting them to die in pointless wars, but that's where my support ends basically.

"What if there was a war and nobody showed up?"

Germany did have several legitimate greviances based on revising the Versailles treaty. Most of these were based on Germans stranded in other nations aftter territory adjustments. The problem with Hitler was that he took it too far and didn't know when to stop. He could have probably eventually gotten what he wanted back out of Poland and not found himself fighting England+France if he had shown a bit of patience.

The problems with the Corridor, the Sarr, etc, whre most of the Germans lived might have worked themselves out naturally. Hitler might have been accommodated further if he had backed off a bit, with the spineless nature of the democracies at that time.

Hitler compares poorly in retrospect to the other German unifier, Otto Von Bismarck. Bismarck fought 3 brief wars against Denmark, Austria, and France to unify Germany but he knew when to stop his agression and consolidate what he had. Bismarck only used war as a means to an end. He kept his territorial demands (except for Alscace-Lorraine,) to purely German territory so that in the future his creation would not be troubled by other powers wanting territoral readjustments.

Bismarck played his hand much better and knew when to put on the breaks. He was also against acquiring Alsace, it should be said, as he wanted to avoid a future war with France over that disputed territory. However, Bismarck was overruled by the German military that wanted a prize and this planted the seed that doomed his Imperial creation. If Hitler could have stopped at acquiring only German-populated territory and consolidating his power, he might have had long-term success.

Hitler was VASTLY incompetent. But there were negotiations between Germany and Mexico around the time of Pearl Harbor, but the Japanese screwed up the declaration and our Southern neighbor got cold feet.

No, pacifism would not have stopped WW2, not in the least. Germany and Japan never thought about that.

Isn't it Axis history to deny the Holocaust?

You can support troops but not support a war. They were taken there by politicians, not of their own free will.

What is it they say is the triumph of hope over experience? Put pacifism on the list.

It takes two to make a fight.

It only takes one to make a massacre.

The world will never run out of bullies.

I THINK it will also never be without heroes.