War is good, war is bad

..We, the US and the rest of the League of Nations were also furious with Russia for attacking Finland. It was one of the great moral dilemmas of WW2 that Finland - a parliamentary democracy - had no choice but to side with Hitler, and we had no choice but to declare war on Finland in support of the military dictatorship of the Soviets. Morality is indeed relative - we sided with the fascist entity which was further away from us than the Third Reich, declaring war on a harmless democracy to cement the alliance. However, barely a shot was fired against the Finns by the allies, and little aid given to the Soviets against Finland - at least in the Winter War.* An indication that perhaps morality was very 'relative' indeed vis-a-vis this dilemma. I would be interested if anyone wider read than me could give an ancient example in which war was waged against a friend in order to preserve a treaty with a nastier ally.

 

* I believe Finland's ill - advised 'Continuation War' gained far less sympathy - but the allies treatment of the Finns was still very permissive.

Generally speaking, strategy is always the priority at war, not morality.

BTW, there were many other Dictatorships besides the Soviets on the Allies' side, like Metaxas in Greece or Chiang-Kai-Shek in China. Not to mention all the non-democratic colonial empires of Britain, France, Belgium and Holland, and even the American Philippines.

On the other hand, Finland was a German ally on WWI too.

Again, we must differentiate between the two Soviet-Finnish wars:

-By the first one (the "winter war" 1939-40) Finland was not allied with Germany, (there was a de facto German-Soviet quasi-alliance).

France and Britain gave Finland some help, US was neutral. Needless to say, no one of them helped the USSR.

-The second one (1941-1944) was just a fraction of the huge German attack against the Soviets (Operation Barbarossa).

As the goals of such operation included the conquest of the USSR and the eventual defeat of Britain, the Finnish attack was hardly "harmless".

If the western Allies fired barely a shot against the Finns, that was fundamentally for obvious geographical reasons.

Anyway, the German raids against the Anglo-American convoys that reached Murmansk had some Finnish assistance.

Just for the record; Finland finished WWII actively (even if maybe reluctantly) fighting against the Germans.

Now, about your classical question, Rome itself is of course the best example of a quite nasty ally.

Virtually all known Roman allies were eventually conquered by Rome, even its most loyal clients.

Rome was perpetually conquering the known world in "self-defence"; and when it stopped, it was mainly for logistical reasons or unsurmountable obstacles.

If you may quote your actual sources on animal and human psychology beyond the evening news and your everyday life experience, I would gladly try my best to check them, as they are clearly completely different from any text on those issues I'm aware of.

Additionally, some of those sources may explain the connection between the sadism/ bullying behaviour and the origin of war, because I simply can't find it.

That is without doubt the most anal comment I've ever heard on this site. Just watch a bunch of kids. Sooner or later you'll see exactly what I'm talking about, assuming you don't get arrested first, given your inability to observe I doubt you'll take much care over it.

Or is it because I haven't listed tons of links to statistical studies by researchers who reach conclusions you like? To be honest, I haven't the time. Unlike most people on this site I don't have access to the internet, so I have to do all my business including real-life stuff on the basis of one hour a day at my local library. Sorry if thats inconvenient for you, but I just don't believe its worth the effort of trying to point out the obvious to you.

Or would you accept my own statistics? Its a smaller sample size and the data is a little old, buts real. No, of course you won't. You've no intention of accepting any arguement I make unless its someones elses. Which is what you do.

This thread has devolved into a butting of the heads. Personal and/or derogatory commentary adds nothing to a discussion, nor is it welcome on the forum. Disagreement over methodology, assessment, opinion and interpretation of fact is perfectly understandable, but we should take care to express these thoughts in a reasonable and amenable manner. We must be able to reach a stage of agreeing to disagree in some discussions simply so as not to permeate the boards with a distasteful aura.

Don't let this discussion spill over into other threads. Thanks.

In any case, war may be good, it may be bad, but I think we can agree with General William Tecumseh Sherman that "War is Hell".