blah the Prussian

Neo Nazis, apparently. I don't think any candidate who is openly anti Semitic has all that good a chance of winning.

Well, there's your answer. No one wanted unrestricted chemical warfare. Seems sensible enough.

There is a badge in New Blackthorn they call the Rising Badge. And it's been the ruin of many a trainer because Claire is an ass.

Nah, I think the Allies planned to honor the agreements against gas, but it was more iffy with the Nazis. I don't know why the Soviets didn't use them, though, as gas seems to be right up Stalin's alley.

Looks like Salamence learned the lesson Hitler and Napoleon learned.

Actually, the only reason gas wasn't used in WWII was that Hitler had been in a gas attack in WWI and didn't want to inflict that on anyone else. Except Jews of course. Also IIRC the Japanese were gunning for that with some pretty fucked up research (google at your own risk) but they didn't succeed.

The US did not tell their people to kill all the Communist. Even if that was the case, it doesn't mean North Vietnam didn't attack South Vietnam.

That's okay.

Between Siberia, Sturmovik, and Typhoon I think we can call this team SOVIET RUSSIA!

Okay, full disclosure on Chemical Weapons: their main problem is that it takes forever for them to go away. If I recall correctly there were incidents in WWI where they were used far from any civilians and they still hit said civilians. They are too hard to control to be used except in extreme circumstances. Also I think Stalin did kill more people than Hitler, unless you count WWII, which isn't really fair as some of those deaths can be chalked up to the Japanese.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War As much as I love history, it's not my job to educate you. Learn your history here. I'm done trying to teach history to you.

Well, lets turn the situation around. If a ruler kills their own people, are they worse or the same as a ruler who kills the same amount of foreigners in your eyes? This is the core of the Hitler vs Stalin debate.

Yeah, I know. It's just wishful thinking on my part.

Oh, that's unforgivable for obvious reasons. Patriotism is a dangerous concept, but it isn't for patriotic reasons that an emperor is obligated to protect a few of their people over a bunch of foreigners. An Emperor owes his power and his duty to his people, and no one else's.

War is justifiable under these circumstances: to reclaim a nations land, as a preemptive strike, to get something your country needs, and to defend an ally. Of course, these conditions are open to interpretation, and that is when war gets morally grey.

As a disclosure on my beliefs, a peasant is less important to me an the Emperor of France. That is because everything an emperor does matters, while a peasant affects relatively little. A successful war can do a nation a lot of good, so by that measure it would be pragmatically justifiable for a leader to win a war at the cost of so,e of their people. I can see pretty well that our two moral compasses are pretty much incompatible, so what do you say we bury the hatchet now?Edit: sorry, Eclipse is right.

Edit: double post

What did Siberia say after it met Alaska? I'd better get my Berings Strait!

I'm inclined to agree with this.

Except Napoleon did not aim to destroy Russia as a nation state. What he intended to do was to force the Tsar to keep his promise, nothing more, nothing less. How would you intend for Napoleon to fix this? If let Russia break it's promise, the other European nations would follow, threatening the territorial integrity of France. War is not about ethics, it's about cause and effect, and to let Russia get away with breaking its treaty would have a negative effect for Napoleon. That is an interesting point, and I will take your word for it. To provide a counter example, however, in the US, generals are well respected, and lead respectable lives after the war. Many US Presidents, including our first, had military careers prior to political careers. Regardless, generals and soldiers are required to fight a war, and war doesn't seem to be going away any time soon, unfortunately.

Actually, the Coalition was the one who started the vast majority of the wars. Napoleon's invasion of Russia happened because Russia refused to embargo the UK despite signing a treaty promising to do so. The only unjustifiable war Napoleon launched was the invasion of Spain, but Spain wasn't exactly in the right there either, being a borderline Catholic theocracy and all. You seem to miss the fact that generals usually weigh the lives of enemy civilians against the lives of their own men. Just because they value their own men, whose lives it is their job to protect, over enemy civilians does not mean that they do not aloe the lives of these civilians. Also, you answer that question. How do generals generally behave in times of peace?

Good point. Let me give you examples of wars where both sides were right: the Napoleonic Wars, the Arab-Israeli conflicts, the Franco Prussian War, the Russo Turkish War, and the Crimean War. There you go. The problem is you can't make anything theoretical here, because war tends to produce such different circumstances. Why should a general risk his war effort to save some civilians on the opposing side? As long as they don't go out of their way to kill civilians they are not doing anything wrong. Provide proof, or any evidence at all, for this claim. I don't believe I ever said that killing civilians deliberately, personally, and for its own sake was okay. I recall specifically condemning the actions of the Red army against the people. Of Germany in 1945.

Debatable. US action in Vietnam was mainly fighting the Vietcong in South Vietnam, but this ignores the very real role North Vietnam had both in assisting the Vietcong and fighting South Vietnam. One could make the case that either the US or North Vietnam, or both were the aggressors.@Dwalin: I don't see how you got that impression from my post, although I can think of a few wars that were quite just, namely Korea, WWII, and the American Civil War. I don't debate to change opinions, anyway, I do it for the thrill.

Is from the land of Pickelhauben.

Ah, but it depends on what you call an aggressor, doesn't it? Both sides could be called the aggressor in WWI, and in the final stages of WWII the Germans were defending their country from invasion. Who was the aggressor in Vietnam? The world is not black and white. Regardless, you dodged my main point by nitpicking a minor point.