zen_tom

It's this that I'm making my point on. There is never a 'just because' - In the example of the killing of the Jews, the government of the day made the so-called jewish 'menace' out to be a threat - in the minds of those people carrying out the orders, they were justifiably protecting their families. Did the German people owe it to their country to carry these acts out? Their leaders would have told them so. And, according to your argument (were you to remove the part about solving problems in a non-violent manner) they would have been justified.

The Second-World-War was not fought because of the Nazi Regime's unpleasant internal policies. It began when Germany invaded Poland, and made steps towards a military domination of Europe. None of the countries involved in WWII did so because of their distaste of the Nazi ideology, they did so for political and economic reasons - and in order to protect their own interests.

Further examples of this include Rwanda where no military action took place to stop the open genocide, and little happened in the Baltic states untill the conflict began to destabalise other parts of Europe. While it is a noble ideal to say that people are sent into combat in order to protect the high moral ground, it has been shown that more often than not, it is issues of money and national security that spurs governments into sending their armies into action. Perhaps here we swap from our chairs of naievite (however it is spelt) and cynicism, but I find it upsetting to think that brave soldiers are being asked to die without knowing what it is they are really dying for.