Have you noticed how "fairytale wars" are very rare?

What do I mean by "fairytale wars"?

Wars where "good" overcomes "evil".

The problem is perspectives and definitions muddy the waters on what is "good" and what is "bad".

I guess basic common consensus on things like "murder", "hatred of select groups", "persecution" etc exist.

But, in recent times, we have seen conflicts across the world from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Korea to conflicts in South America and the Balkans. Such conflicts were not "fairytale wars". It was much more complicated. In some cases, matters weren't even resolved, new countries were spawned and powers even abandoned conflicts. Tolls were high and damage was great. But nobody lived happily ever after and nobody does...

Humans like the idea of "good" overcoming "evil". It is said that as a species we are the only sentient one to (usually) have moral codes. However, in practice, this isn't usually the case and is much more complicated in real life.

a reply to: IndigoLLC

I think with most wars whomever wins is classed as good and the defeated are bad, as the victor writes the history books.

If Germany had won the 2nd world war the planet would be more akin to their verses of valour.

War is something we need to refrain from but I doubt that will ever happen as we fight over borders/wealth/resources despite us all being part of one race....human.

a reply to: IndigoLLC
War is a conflict of wills, "the continuation of diplomacy by other means".
If A is trying to take what belongs to B, then the defensive war is moral from B's viewpoint. Germany was clearly being "A" in both world wars.
The ambiguity comes when the ownership of the property is debatable. Who owned the territory of South Vietnam? If it belonged to the government of South Vietnam, then nobody was being immoral when they were defending it. The government of North Vietnam thought they owned it.

For a war started for no good reason at all, I would invite you to consider the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. (Bismarck deliberately cut down a long report from his Emperor into "The French ambassador asked for something, I ended the conversation." The French found this insulting)

a reply to: IndigoLLC

Name a war in history that was purely "good" vs purely "evil" and you'll find the "good" mixed with parts of "evil. But you'll also find the "evil" is mixed with parts of "good". Instead of Good VS Evil, it's Should VS Shouldn't.

in wars of aggression the aggressor is almost always 'evil' (Napoleon)

justified by 'we must retaliate against the whatever they are doing'

WWII is about as morally clear as a war could be. aggressors were extremely cruel and oppressive.

internal wars are a mess.

USA in VietNam is a great example of mixed morals. the USA was fighting to save Asia from communism and soviet oppression; the VietNamese were fighting for VietNam independence. better communication might have worked things out.
the French really made a mess there. too many Vietnamese felt the USA was just replacing the French.