The most immoral war in history?

[Dimentio]

Basically, what would you say if one nation through a private cartel is supplying another nation with heroin. The other nation answers by confiscating the drugs and destroying them.

Then the first nation gets morally enraged, and starts a massive, virtually unprovoked retaliation against the second nation involving naval and military forces?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_Zexu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

In all the history of Imperialism, this (alongside the capture of Atahualpa) must be the most flagrant violation of international laws.

[CynicalIdealist]

What about Nazi Germany killing 26 million Russians?

[gorillafuck]

This seems like a really pointless and odd thing to have ratings for what's worse than others. Also, it's not as if enforcing narcotics trade is a particularly unique thing to that war.

[Dimentio]

What about Nazi Germany killing 26 million Russians?

In some sense, the Nazis were just applying what all European colonial powers had done outside of Europe, but inside Europe.

[Evil Dead]

The War On Drugs

[Vampire Lobster]

In some sense, the Nazis were just applying what all European colonial powers had done outside of Europe, but inside Europe.

This so much. The "true crime" of the Nazi regime was not their genocidal nature, but who their victims were: they were white, European and ~civilized~ people who were being rounded up and killed, and due to its proximity the West actually got to see the effects of holocaust.

The British Empire has probably more blood on its hands (or not, but I think making moral judgements solely on bodycount is extremely callous) but for some reason (i.e. the Western whitewashing of the Allies, huge propaganda campaigns against Nazis and our own subconscious racism) we're a lot more willing to forgive and forget than we are ready to do with Nazi crimes.

[Invader Zim]

In some sense, the Nazis were just applying what all European colonial powers had done outside of Europe, but inside Europe.

And what sense would that be? The only one I can think of is rabid expansionism, and even then your implication that this was unique is farsical. What was unique, in the Nazi conquest of Europe, was their ultimate plan to destroy - as opposed to subjugate - the vast majority of the inhabitants within those conquered regions.

[gorillafuck]

What was unique, in the Nazi conquest of Europe, was their ultimate plan to destroy - as opposed to subjugate - the vast majority of the inhabitants within those conquered regions.Did they really plan to destroy all of them? I thought they planned to exterminate the Jews, and subjugate the rest.

[Dimentio]

And what sense would that be? The only one I can think of is rabid expansionism, and even then your implication that this was unique is farsical. What was unique, in the Nazi conquest of Europe, was their ultimate plan to destroy - as opposed to subjugate - the vast majority of the inhabitants within those conquered regions.

Things like massive forced labour, disregard for treaties, contempt for the civilian population, overreactions to slight injuries, mutilations, attempts to annihilate populations, forced starvation (the last one in Bengal in 1943-1944), racism, exploitation of economies.

[Tommy4ever]

Well, if we count the entire existence of the Congo Free State as a war then it takes the hat. Throughout its existence the State used terror in a way not seen on the same scale and to the same degree before or since in the pursuit of one thing - profit. For all their ills the no other genocidal regimes have ever been so solely fueled by the desire for profit as the Congo Free State.

Also, how about the War of Jenkin's Ear for being a war fought for the most immoral, or rather ridiculous, reasons.

[ComradeOm]

Also, how about the War of Jenkin's Ear for being a war fought for the most immoral, or rather ridiculous, reasons.Hmmm? This was a conflict fought not over one man's ear but due to long-standing tensions, particularly regarding trade, in the Caribbean. Hostilities were preceded by a year of diplomatic wrangling, in which Jenkin's merely served as a pretext, that attempted to avoid conflict. In reality wars between nations are very rarely started because of lost ears

Edit:

Did they really plan to destroy all of them? I thought they planned to exterminate the Jews, and subjugate the restSlavs were to be liquidated and their lands settled by Germans. Nazi campaigns used the bullet, gas and starvation to kill millions in Russia and Poland. To suggest that this has any real resemblance - in form, scale or intent - to previous European colonial ventures is absurd

[Dimentio]

Jenkin's ear was between two imperialist powers, and they generally behaved politely towards one another on the battlefield.

[Tommy4ever]

Hmmm? This was a conflict fought not over one man's ear but due to long-standing tensions, particularly regarding trade, in the Caribbean. Hostilities were preceded by a year of diplomatic wrangling, in which Jenkin's merely served as a pretext, that attempted to avoid conflict. In reality wars between nations are very rarely started because of lost ears



I realise that the ear didin't start the war :rolleyes:. I'm just saying that it's a really stupid official reason for war.

[Dimentio]

Slavs were to be liquidated and their lands settled by Germans. Nazi campaigns used the bullet, gas and starvation to kill millions in Russia and Poland. To suggest that this has any real resemblance - in form, scale or intent - to previous European colonial ventures is absurd

The Tazmanian campaigns of the British? The destruction of Hispaniola? The forced starvation of India?

The Nazis wanted a colony. Since overseas was impossible, they aimed for Russia.

[ComradeOm]

I realise that the ear didin't start the war :rolleyes:. I'm just saying that it's a really stupid official reason for war.By the standards of starting wars, the mutilation of a crown subject is a pretty good pretext. Certainly its no worse than the Pastry War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastry_War) (destruction of a bakery), Spanish-American War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War) (unknown explosion of USS Maine), Flagstaff War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagstaff_War) (lowering of flags), War of the Bucket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Bucket) (theft of bucket), etc. Which is not to forget little events such as World War I (death of a duke) and World War II (attack on a radio station). None of the above were direct causes for war but when people go looking for a reason to fight they generally find one; if not they just make one up

Edit:

The Tazmanian campaigns of the British? The destruction of Hispaniola? The forced starvation of India?And if you think that any of this is comparable to the Holocaust then you are quite simply mistaken

[Bokonon]

All wars are immoral in some sense. War itself is a struggle for resources and power and is an absurdity of the human condition. All sides believe they are right during war despite how wrong they may be.

[Dimentio]

In principle, they are comparable.

But... the Congo Free-state. That was definetly comparable in size.

[Invader Zim]

Did they really plan to destroy all of them? I thought they planned to exterminate the Jews, and subjugate the rest.

Given that the Nazis mass-murdered romani, political undesirables, slavs, homosexuals, people with disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc, in addition to Jews, we can be pretty well sure that they didn't just want to halt at the extermination of the Jews in Europe. They wanted to create a racially pure Nazi Europe. They exterminated Jews first because the Jews were the most despised group and it was practically possible to do so, but had the Nazis not been defeated and been provided the opportunity to continue their process of extermination then it is undoubtedly the case that they would have vastly extended their range of targets to remove all groups that did not have a place in their imagined racially pure 'utopia'.


Things like massive forced labour, disregard for treaties, contempt for the civilian population, overreactions to slight injuries, mutilations, attempts to annihilate populations, forced starvation (the last one in Bengal in 1943-1944), racism, exploitation of economies.

I'm just going to quote Om, because there isn't anything really to add:

"And if you think that any of this is comparable to the Holocaust then you are quite simply mistaken."


In principle, they are comparable.

No.

[Queercommie Girl]

Basically, what would you say if one nation through a private cartel is supplying another nation with heroin. The other nation answers by confiscating the drugs and destroying them.

Then the first nation gets morally enraged, and starts a massive, virtually unprovoked retaliation against the second nation involving naval and military forces?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_Zexu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

In all the history of Imperialism, this (alongside the capture of Atahualpa) must be the most flagrant violation of international laws.

The Opium Wars weren't as bad as what the Russian imperialists did to China in the north: genocidal mass killings of entire villages. The Russians would push every single man, woman and children into the river to drown.

In fact, the Russian expansion into Siberia and North Asia has some similarities with the white colonialist expansion across North America. In both cases, white colonialists conquered "yellow" (Mongolid) peoples.

The difference being that firstly in Eurasia, disease was never a factor, so Mongolid populations were never completely wiped out, and secondly, the Mongol feudal imperialists actually conquered all of Russia and much of Eastern Europe several centuries earlier (13 - 14th centuries CE), so much so that generally Tsarist aristocrats in Old Russia had significant amounts of Mongol ancestry.

[Queercommie Girl]

I'd say the two most brutal genocidal wars in human history were:

1) The Mongol conquest of Eurasia, leading to around 100 million deaths;

2) The European conquest of the Americas, leading to around 100 million deaths.

These can be primarily blamed on the institutions of feudal imperialism and capitalist imperialism respectively.

[Invader Zim]

I'd say the two most brutal genocidal wars in human history were:

1) The Mongol conquest of Eurasia, leading to around 100 million deaths;

2) The European conquest of the Americas, leading to around 100 million deaths.

These can be primarily blamed on the institutions of feudal imperialism and capitalist imperialism respectively.


2) The European conquest of the Americas, leading to around 100 million deaths.

Sorry to harp on about this like a broken record, but where is the evidence that the European's who conquered the Americas actually had the grasp of epidemiology to intend to spread the pathogens which destroyed the indigenous population, thus making it a single genocidal act of war?

That isn't to downplay the brutality of the wars waged against those who survived the innumerable pathagens, but accusing the European invaders of deliberately wiping out the entire population is not an assertion supported by the facts. The European invaders wanted to enslave the indigenous population certainly, and was more than willing to destroy entire populations that did not co-operate. But ultimately the destruction of the indigenous population was counter-productive to their ultimate aims, and when the indigenous population had been largely wiped out by disease they supplimented to the supply of slave labour by importing slaves from Africa.

Again, that is not to suggest that the Europeans did not committ numerous smaller acts of genocide, but genocide does not account for the bulk of the population decline among the indigenous peoples.

PS. It is doubtful that the pre-Columbus population of the Americas numbered 100,000,000. Realistically the figure is probably half that number.

[Queercommie Girl]

Sorry to harp on about this like a broken record, but where is the evidence that the European's who conquered the Americas actually had the grasp of epidemiology to intend to spread the pathogens which destroyed the indigenous population, thus making it a single genocidal act of war?

That isn't to downplay the brutality of the wars waged against those who survived the innumerable pathagens, but accusing the European invaders of deliberately wiping out the entire population is not an assertion supported by the facts. The European invaders wanted to enslave the indigenous population certainly, and was more than willing to destroy entire populations that did not co-operate. But ultimately the destruction of the indigenous population was counter-productive to their ultimate aims, and when the indigenous population had been largely wiped out by disease they supplimented to the supply of slave labour by importing slaves from Africa.

Again, that is not to suggest that the Europeans did not committ numerous smaller acts of genocide, but genocide does not account for the bulk of the population decline among the indigenous peoples.

PS. It is doubtful that the pre-Columbus population of the Americas numbered 100,000,000. Realistically the figure is probably half that number.

European colonists did use "primitive biological warfare" in some cases against native peoples, e.g. deliberately spreading dangerous germs, but I agree that overall the factor of disease was largely unplanned.

I included all deaths during these two major campaigns of conquest, both direct and indirect, not just direct killings in wars and massacres.

For the Mongol conquest of Eurasia too, disease was also a factor. The Black Death, which may have killed up to a third of the population in much of Europe, originally came from Central Asia, which was the Mongol homeland.

In terms of direct killings, (in wars and massacres) it's true that the Mongol feudal imperialists killed more people. However, this was only because the continent of Eurasia was much more heavily populated (especially regions like China and the Islamic World) than the Americas, not because the Europeans were any less brutal than the Mongols.

[Dimentio]

Genghis Khan had some idea to kill all people of the parts of China he took (roughly the area north of the Yang Ze) but his advisors managed to get him on other thoughts.