American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

The topic of how wars are fought was being discussed at my store today. The issue revolved around whether or not their are "good wars" and "bad wars" in relation to how the combatants treat each other. The factors of hatred, racism, and WMDs (poison gas attacks in WW1 for instance) were brought up as things that can lead to, or cause, "bad wars." The "good wars" were the ones where the combatants did not not necessarily want to kill each other but were engaged for reasons they had no control over. The two wars most discussed (probably because, as Americans, we know these wars the best) were the Civil War and WW2.

The general consensus was that the Civil War was a "good war." The soldiers fought and killed in great numbers but there was little extreme hatred on either side. At the end of the war everyone went home and the nation moved on to other business. Isolated incidents of war atrocities occurred in the Civil War but not on a scale to term the War a "bad war" or a "ugly war."

WW2 was a split vote. The Pacific theater was considered to be a "bad war." The US and Japanese soldiers had little in common and a racial hatred between the two was already in place (or was quickly established through propaganda). The Japanese culture forbid any type of surrender and this led to some very ugly battles in which no quarter was given to either side. US soldiers had to learn that a wounded enemy soldier was still very much determined to fight until death finally overtook him. The conclusion was that the two sides had a general hatred for one another on the battlefield. These cultural differences contributed to the war being a "bad one" in the Pacific.

But with the European Theater (the Western Front) it was argued it was a "good war." US and German soldiers generally respected the rules of war and by late 1944 and 1945 the Germans were flocking to surrender to the Americans over the Russians. German soldiers knew they could expect better treatment from the Americans. I brought up the fact that German generals actually disliked fighting the Americans because the longer they held them back in the West the more progress would be made in the East by the Russians into Germany.

So - Good wars? Bad wars? Are there such things?

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)

The good/bad dichotomy is inappropriate when applied to war. Necessary/unnecessary is better used. Was the Civil War necessary? Yes, I believe so but others disagree. Was WWII necessary? No, but the Axis were the aggressors and started it. Was WWI necessary? No, but Austria-Hungary was determined to punish Serbia, etc.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

I recall a story in one of the many war books I've read, about soldiers from Waffen SS units arriving in the west (probably from 9th & 10th SS Panzer Divisions) directly from the eastern front and being "amazed" when, around late afternoon/evening after heavy fighting that day, an unofficial ceasefire allowed aid parties from both sides to tend to the wounded and retrieve the bodies of the fallen.
"A different kind of war" was the opinion given by one of the SS soldiers recounting the episode.

Also I remember seeing a documentary about the Pacific war and an interview with a former Japanese soldier. He recalled the propaganda and indoctrination which had led him and his comrades to view their American opponents as being ...not having a literal translation of the Japanese term ..."less than human".
He spoke of having listened to a wounded US Marine, laying somewhere between the lines, calling for his mother during the night and of the shock he felt at realising the humanity of his adversary.

Interesting post but well nigh impossible to adequately answer. I had an elderly neighbour who maintained a ferocious hatred of the Japanese as he had been a prisoner of war in the far east during WWII. Though even he spoke about how such hatred was not for people of the younger (my) generation as that hate shouldn't be an inherited kind of thing.
That contrasted with another elderly neighbours attitude, as he had been a prisoner of the Germans during the war (and escaped, making a "home-run from a camp in Poland) and didn't harbour any such powerful emotions regarding his former captors.

_________________
Brigadier-General Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.

The Civil War wasn't necessary but it was inevitable. Reasonable men could have come to a reasonable solution that both sides could live with but there was a shortage of reasonable men.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)

I don't believe there is any such thing as a good war. War generally brings misery, death, loss, hunger, sorrow, privation, and very often the ones who suffer are the weak, helpless and innocent.

I think sometimes war is preferable to the alternative, such as to reverse tyranny or avert genocide or the enslavement of nations. But I have studied military history and war all my life, and I can't find a whole lot of good about it per se.

_________________
MG Mike Mihalik
Forrest's Cavalry Corps
AoWest/CSA

Mike, it's getting late. For a while there, I thought that you were talking about marriage.

_________________
Gen Ned Simms
2/XVI Corps/AotT
Blood 'n Guts hisself, a land lovin' pirate. Show me some arty tubes and we'll charge 'em.
VMI Class of '00

Hi, Ned,

Better hope the missus don't find this forum, or war will look like a walk in the park.

_________________
MG Mike Mihalik
Forrest's Cavalry Corps
AoWest/CSA

_________________
Brigadier-General Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.

I totally agree with Digglyda. Since Hitler always planned for a war, there was gonna be a war. Brittain (Chamberlain) tried to avoid it but it was useless because of the German's hidden agenda. Now with Japan, its different. We could have avoided a war if we had let them have their way in China and have all the imports they wanted. Eventually, though, they would have attacked, probably Britain first. The Peace movement was very active prior to WWII. No way were the Allies going to start a war.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding

I believe France and Britain could have sucessfully stood up to Nazi Germany much earlier than 1939. When Hitler invaded the Ruhr, "liberated" Austria, wiped out Czechoslovakia, and then turned to Poland he was still vastly outnumbered on the Western Front. All of his generals believed France could have easily overwhelmed them on that front and quickly brought an end to the war Hitler was planning. Had the allies been more aggressive in keeping their alliance with the USSR active than Hitler and Stalin may not have signed their ill-fated pact. Because Stalin felt Britain and France to be so weak in their opposition to Hitler he felt it better to stab Poland in the back than get into another war with Germany. With no threat from the Soviets in 1939 Hitler was able to quickly invade Poland (split it with Stalin) and then turn his full force back on the Western Front. The allies had plenty of reasons to attack Germany prior to 1939 but didnt act until it was far too late. We all know the consequences for the peoples of Europe who ended up being overran by Hitler's war machine.

Its interesting to ponder what may have happened if Hitler had waited a few more years to mobilize his Army fully. Mussolini felt that by 1945 the Axis would be fully ready for a World War. With the Allies dragging their heels to mobilize while Hitler was using all his industry for war supplies it could have been a very beneficial gain to the Axis.

(please excuse any factual errors - I am not as well-versed in WW2 history as I am the Civil War)

Maybe this thread shou;d deal with the premise that some wars were inevitable, not avoidable. It take two sides to avoid a war and one side to make it inevitable.

_________________
Gen. Drex Ringbloom,
AotS ,Commanding