War has NEVER been used to Liberate People

[ck4829]

I can never find that Liberation of a group of people was a true reason for war. There are only a couple of wars in which Liberation of a group of people was the said reason, but who the invading party has no true association with. The 1st being the Crusades, Pope Urban II started the Crusades to stop the expansion of Muslims, and protect the Christians there, but if you read Pope Urban's speech, you will see that he believes slaying the 'evil' Muslims are much more important than the Crusaders rescuing their fellow Christians. The Crusades by the way were a complete failure, resulting in massive loss of innocent Human life. (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim non-combatants died, I hope the people who keep on referring to 'crusades' or defend Bush when he used the word 'crusade' in his speeches realize that the Crusades were nothing but pure idiocy)

Some other examples in which Liberation was the given reason would be George W. Bush's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

1. WWII comes close in my book

Yes, the countries all had their own motives, but it did liberate the Jewish people from Nazism.

[RuleofLaw]

2. Not so

I don't think you can say the motive for WWI was the liberation of Jews.

The US government refused permission for a refugee ship, filled with Jews, to enter US harbors and send it back to Germany. Even when the allies were made aware of the concentration camps, they refused to bomb the rail road tracks leading into the camps, which would have put an effective stop to the operations there.

It can be argued that the liberation of the Scandinavian countries was a motive. But again, I believe the motive was to end the threat of world domination by Germany (See the us Declaration of war, 12/11/1941)

As for England, it was fighting for its own survival.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. Agreed, the US could've just bombed the German railroad tracks...

That would've prevented the Nazis from taking the jews to concentration camps. The US entry into World War II was about preventing Hitler from taking over the world.

[DoNotRefill]

34. And they would have just shot the Jews in place....

Ever hear of Babi Yar?

[Sirveri]

38. No that's wrong too.

The US entry into the European Theater was to combat the threat from Stalinism and the big red menace. The brass didn't feel like having all of Europe up to France go red and figured getting in would be a good plan.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. An interesting interpretation

I certainly agree that part of US strategy during World War II was letting the Russians fight most of the land battles so that they would suffer heavy casualties and thus weaken their military.

[T Town Jake]

52. That's sheer, utter...

...horseshit. It might do you good to crack the spine of a history book ever now and again, like before you post and all.

[0007]

61. I agree with you, but history books are only as good as the people

who write them. The communist thingie has out lived it day. Same as democracy slowly disappears with the population of the world.

[kcwayne]

60. Uh, the US entry into the European theater came when Germany declared war

on the US. The supply of military supplies and weapons to Britain under the Lend Lease act was to aid them in their struggle against Germany, not the Soviet Union.

Was everyone asleep in history class the last two decades or something?

[chicagiana]

45. I doubt it ...

Train tracks aren't that difficult to repair.

[jmowreader]

66. Railroad tracks can be repaired

And those camps were full of laborers--the Jews.

Bombing the German rail lines wouldn't have stopped the Nazis from taking the Jews to concentration camps...and it could have caused even more extermination. If the Nazis wouldn't have been able to remove the Jews to the concentration camps that existed, they could have easily converted a factory or a small town into a concentration camp.

[Silverhair]

67. During WWII, the German rail system WAS heavily bombed.

As well as rail terminals. They got to be real good at fast fixes, and rerouting trains. Also, it wasn't until 1944 that we had air dominace over Germany.

Also, the death camps were mostly to the East of Berlin, and it was a too long trip for the aircraft of the era.

[rkc3]

3. Liberating the Jews was a side effect of that war.

They were held for years without (at least to my knowledge) any major efforts to get in and liberate them from the German camps.

With respect to this "liberation", it seems bush is bent on giving Iraqis freedom and democracy even if he has to kill every one of them to do it.

[atreides1]

4. Actually

It freed all of Europe from Nazism, the bad part was that in opened the door for the Russians to take control of Eastern Europe for 4 decades.

Besides the Jewish people, it freed homosexuals, gypsies, socialists, communists, catholics, protestants, and the mentally disabled, not to mention those that were against the Nazis,based on principles.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

13. Yes, that's true. n/t

[RuleofLaw]

18. Just one comment about the Russians

Not to make excuses for their control of eastern Europe, but it is worth noting that without the Russians, I don't think Hitler would have been defeated. At least not so fast. The red army was the major factor in Hitlers defeat. (First to Berlin) And the sacrifice of the Red Army and the Russian people is amassing.

[DoNotRefill]

35. Stalin was just as bad if not worse than Hitler.....

He certainly killed more Russians than Hitler did....

The USSR took Berlin because US troops were halted. We (Americans) could have taken all of Germany (and probably much of Eastern Europe), but decided not to. Towards the end, the Wehrmacht was still fighting the Soviets to give others time to make it to American and British lines to surrender, since they knew the fate of people who were captured by the Soviets.

[chicagiana]

46. Stalin was definitely worse ... *

[durutti]

70. Debatable.

Stalin certainly was responsible for much unnecessary killing. But just how many he killed is subject to debate, and there is some reason to think he killed considerably less than Americans are accustomed to thinking (see Michael Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds for a discussion of this point).

In addition, one has to remember that under Stalin, life expectancy rose dramatically and infant mortality rates dropped dramatically. This doesn't happen to anywhere near the same degree under Hitler.

[durutti]

68. Very true. In fact...

If the U.S. hadn't entered the war, the war between the Third Reich and the Soviets probably would've reached a stalemate.

[Djinn]

20. we're talking about the MOTIVES not the results

I beleive. There has never been a war fought to liberate anyone - atleast not one that involves outside nations - certain civil wars have had that aim (though not really the American civil war)

England (and allies) didn't give a stuff about the Jews, Socialists, Gypsies etc suffering under the Nazi's, they worried about Nazi expansion.

Japan did not give a stuff about European colonial adventures in South East Asia, they just wanted to grab the loot themselves.

Vietnam wasn't liberating Cambodians from Pol Pot when the invaded, they were protecting there own territory

The fact that people were liberated after these conflicts was not the reason for the conflict, wars are fought for power, money and strategic influence, always have been and always will be.

[T Town Jake]

53. You can't separate a war's...

...results from it's motives in such a discussion, at least not if you happen to be intellectually honest and know anything at all about history.
But then, I see that on the those two points you're already down a deuce...so never mind.

[Darranar]

23. But it wasn't a war FOR liberation, merely OF liberation...

The victims of the Nazis were liberated, but none of the nations involved fought for that purpose.

[durutti]

69. Don't forget the Romani.

The proportions of the Romani and Jewish populations exterminated are roughly equivalent. It always bothers me when people neglect the former.

That said, the post was about rulers' *motives* for entering war, not the consequences of their decisions per se. And I really don't think you could find a single genuine example of a noble motive for war.

[NoPasaran]

5. Our War of Independence

Liberated this country from Britsh tyranny.

[ck4829]

7. That is true, but...

That is us. What I said is that an invading force has never invaded a country on the other side of the world just to liberate the people there.

[Mabeline]

14. We were invaded to keep us loyal to England, they may have seen themselves

as invaders for liberation of those among us that were loyal to the crown.

Just a thought.

[chicagiana]

47. England sought to keep the US Colonies ...

... because the colonies made a lot of $$$ for wealthy Englishmen.

Our "special relationship" with England has always been a monetary one.

[carnie_sf]

12. What about the slaves? eom

[Djinn]

22. self deleted

[bones_7672]

6. Afgahnistan was for 9/11 first, liberation second. n/t

[ck4829]

9. Revenge, building the oil pipeline there, then installing a puppet govt.

[durutti]

71. It was for neither.

It was "for 9/11" perhaps in the trivial sense that destroying a Muslim country allowed the administration to appear to be doing something about terrorism. At root, though, it was just a massive display of American power meant to intimidate enemies and allow the U.S. to occupy a strategic geographic position. But it was by no means a right or wise thing to do.

9/11 was a crime against humanity, not an act of war. It was not perpetrated by a state. Afghanistan was one of the many states that warned the U.S. of trouble brewing prior to 9/11. It could not have taken on bin Laden itself because the regime there would then have risked its overthrow.

If someone were to break into your house and murder one of your family members, would that then give you the right to break into his or her house, killed a few of its residents, and command the rest at gunpoint? Of course not. The appropriate action would be to go to the police.

Likewise, the appropriate course of action after 9/11 would have been first to pursue the Taliban's offer to turn over bin Laden. If they didn't make good on that offer, then the proper course of action would have been to go to the Security Council with the issue. Interpol and other agencies could then have been sent to Afghanistan to apprehend bin Laden and his cohorots (with military accompaniment, if need be).

Liberation? Ridiculous. The U.S. allied itself with the Northern Alliance, whose record is just as bloody as that of the Taliban. In fact, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan opposed the war. Most Afghan women still wear the burka, and much of the country is controlled by warlords. And any "election" is meaningless as long as there remains as U.S. military presence.

[HamdenRice]

8. Sherman's march ...

through the idiotic red states was pretty successful, no?

<edited>

[DireStrike]

10. Interesting point.

But we could argue forever about the reasons for the civil war.

[Charon]

32. Sherman's march

General Sherman's March had nothing to do with liberation. His purpose was to "Make Georgia Howl"

[HamdenRice]

37. If I remember my family history correctly ...

Great grandad was slave in 1863 and a freeman in 1865. I believe that Sherman making Georgia howl had something to do with that -- not to mention all the slaves who followed in the wake union armies like Sherman's and out of bondage.

[carnie_sf]

11. The motive for all wars

at least in the last 100 years or so has always been the same, money. More specifically, increased profits for arms manufacturers. The politicians who do the bidding of these fascistic, corporate evil-doers will use whatever noble sounding lies they have to to sell the necessity of war to the cannon fodder (us). If you doubt these facts I recommend reading "War is a Racket" by Maj Gen Smedley Butler USMC ret.

On edit: Added Gen Butler's branch of service

[disconnected]

16. i can't really think of a war that has ever brought lasting peace

or security for that matter...

[AngryAmish]

40. 3d Punic war

Carthage wasn't a problem after that.

[Charon]

33. The motive for all wars

So President's Roosevelt's motive for going to war with Germany to to make Ford Motor Company, Grumman and NNSBDD richer?

[Hippo_Tron]

17. The American Revolution?

The oppression wasn't too terrible until the intolerable acts, but nonetheless they were fed up with British policies that they had no control over.

[CrispyQ]

19. War never determines who's right, only who's left.

Don't know who said that, but it is true.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. Re: Don't know who said that,

Confucius, I think???

[ChairOne]

24. You're just kidding, right?

Here's the beginning of a list of wars that were fought with the bonafide (not just stated) goal of liberating somebody - either in whole, or to a substantial degree:

The American Revolution
The Civil War (no need to argue the slavery/economics issue - I'm talking about Johnny Reb - lol)
WWII
Kuwait (if that actually qualifies as a war)

I'm sure there's more... I'm just being historically dense at the moment...

[Hippo_Tron]

25. WWII was about stopping Hitler from taking over the world

Or at least US entry into it.

[ChairOne]

27. I clearly said....

"in whole or to a substantial degree"

Do you really want to commit yourself to the claim that there was *absolutely no* substantial goal on the part of the US to liberate Europe?

There aren't any wars, to the best of my knowledge, that had *precisely one* reason for their existence. Rather, they all involve multiple reasons. For WWII, helping out our European and Jewish friends was one of them.

I don't understand people who think, or claim to think, that wars have exactly one reason, to the exclusion of all others (as if anything in the world is so simple). But I suppose that's just a statement about me...

[Hippo_Tron]

28. The original point of this post was on "primary motives"

But at least I agree with you on the American Revolution. I that shattered ties with the British started partly as a matter of profit, but I think that by the time of the Declaration of Independence, Americans wanted freedom from British control for multiple reasons.

[ChairOne]

39. I guess I can't read worth a damn then....

Cuz I don't see the phrase "primary motives" (your quotes) appearing anywhere within the OP. I don't see anything within the OP that even *means* that.

The only thing in the OP I see is the difference between *actual* reasons, and *stated* reasons. Which has nothing to do with primary reasons, nor does it have anything to do with your notion that wars have a *unique* reason - a notion that I still find laughable.

Back to the hooked on phonics with me!

[Hippo_Tron]

41. My mistake, but that's how I interpreted the post

Basically what I'm saying is that I BELIEVE US entered World War II to prevent Hitler from taking over the world. The liberation of Europe and the Jews from Nazi oppression were just side effects. That's just my opinion.

[ChairOne]

43. All good - your opinions are surely your own.... /eom

[LynnTheDem]

56. Kuwait??? Poppa bush admitted it was the OIL.

What the given EXCUSE is (the cover) and what the actual MOTIVE is are usually -for America it's always- two very different things.

Liberation is the cover and often a side-effect. But no war has been fought with "liberation" being the motive. Including the US civil war.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ms. Clio]

30. What on earth is this?

Did you take a wrong turn somewhere?

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sparkly]

44. That's not a DU post

and I'm sure you know that.

[TheKingfish]

29. What about North Vietnam

They invaded South Vietnam to liberate it.

[DoNotRefill]

36. Horseshit.

they invaded South Vietnam to control it.

[kostya]

48. Winning hearts and minds one body at a time.

NOTICE: Not for the squeamish...
http://www.thenausea.com/elements/usa/iraq%202004/12/polishsold.htm

- K :nuke:

[d_b]

49. Hitler was invading Eastern Europe

to return the slavs to their homeland.

[jakpalmer]

50. Yugoslavia ?

I think the UN intervention in Yugoslavia helped liberate the Bosnians (mainly) from the Serbian oppression.
In my limited knowledge, this intervention had no other purpose.

[LynnTheDem]

59. Peacekeeping missions

aren't wars.

[jakpalmer]

62. Well, it looked like a war to me

but you're right, technically UN missions are not wars.

[LynnTheDem]

63. Actually to me, too...

Yer getting yer arse shot at??? IMO that's a frigging WAR, lol! :D

[jakpalmer]

64. About UN "peacekeeping" missions...

Wasn't the Korean war a UN peacekeeping mission ?

[LynnTheDem]

65. It was UN-authorized.

Like the Gulf War.

[robre]

51. It is up to the people of the nation to fight for their own liberty.

Liberty or death is the decision any nation must make before the nation will accept it. Only then will it have freedom which will only be forgotten by the future generations as time passes.

The founding fathers well understood this principle.

[LynnTheDem]

54. bush's given reason for invading Iraq was WMD.

"Liberation" was rhetoric only, not a given reason.

Afghanistan was in retaliation for "harboring" OBL.

"Liberation" was rhetoric only, not a given reason.

[Red State Rebel]

55. Kuwait? n/m

[LynnTheDem]

57. Not according to Poppa bush

He admitted at the time it was to protect Saudi's OIL fields. The USA publicly told the world they didn't care if Iraq invaded Kuwait, it wasn't US's business...until the PNACers convinced Poppa the Iraqis would go after Saudi next.

[One_Life_To_Give]

58. Reasons for war are never singular

Even in "Soverign Women" the reasons why the men went to war are about more than just Liberation. Perhaps it is the complexity of Human Society, or realisation of the gravity of combat. But wars typically have multiple goals. But that does not lessen the importance of any individual goal.