Are there good sides in a war?

[Raycheronef]

There are no good sides in war. We as humanity should love and care for each other, not fight against each other.

[1714237900]

1714237900

[1714237900]

1714237900

[1714237900]

1714237900

[robykoy]

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.

[matutana10]

If people turn out to be good during the war, there will never be a war, which is good.

[cyrax00777]

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.

[juminem23]

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.

[grandsat1]

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.

[juminem23]

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.

[HarrietKnowles10]

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!

[ribm4]

Nope, there are no good sides to any war and there cannot be.

[Cgilonrondom]

For what I have heard and seen there are no good sides to any war.

[Sithawaka]

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.

There is nothing good in war except disaster and chaos

[icostairs]

I think the bad side is the one who will try to achieve power an wealth at any cost. Most of the time they start the war

[Jay Mkonnen]

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.

Seems like we can find good things in each and every situation, but is this is really an outcome of war? Maybe. Was it worth it so many lifes, suffers and pain? I doubt it.

[TraderGaluh]

I think no one is a good side in every war.. if a war have a good side it's just what perspective you using to see that...

[ETHICKNINE]

War always comes with shedding of blood and leaving particularly women and children stranded. No matter what might come out of the war which your may refer to as positive, I think it always comes with numerous negatives and as such should not be tolerated.

Yes no matter what kind of war and the reason for it there is nothing good will come from it

[Xiaolongnu]

All soldiers in a war is good because they fight for their nation, in a war, there is no good side or bad side, there is only winner side and loser side.

[ETHICKNINE]

Those fighting might have the good sides after all they are all humans.

I don't get you how can those fighting might have the good sides ?

[rprimism]

Not sure about this. War spurs innovation in war, no doubt. There was a spurt of technical innovation in WW1 and WW2, thats true. IIRC the theoretical work on fission was done in the peace of 1919-1938, ditto penecilin, ditto thinking machines, they just were applied to the battlefield in war so maybe its not as much as you'd think. The Napoleonic wars saw some innovation in military theory and practice, but once again the groundwork was pre-war: the revolution played as much a part herer, changing social and economic constraints on innovation. England developed some fancy financials in the the Napoleonic wars, and War of the Spanish Succession too. In one sense losing a war can lead to a clean slate from which to build toward the next war, so there can be a spurt of innovation (and established military can be complacent and hard to change I guess). Does losing a war spur uinnovation more than participating in one? Many allied developments were catch-ups with German and Russian onesdeveloped in the 1930's: close air support for inf, massed armour, deep operations etc. Germany and Russia were the biggest losers to survive WW1, and innovation was a marked element of their military at the time.

[yihad]

Nope Hellheaven is right, the objective was declared to be civilians. The Atomic Bomb was also not necessary in ending the war since the Japanese had already asked for terms but the Allies wanted total surrender. It seems to be the Soviet threat which actually caused the Japanese to surrender to the Americans rather than to fight both. But the fire bombing and atomic bombs were most likely also motivated by the "racial inferiority" of the Japanese. One reason that the Japanese did not want to surrender were the rumours and later the publications that the Americans would execute captured Japanese and so this motivated them to fight to the death, that alongside their religious and cultural ideology.

[CryptoBayu]

None of good side in war...