There are clearly defined good and bad sides in wars

...

user, did you ever think that Armenians were in the wrong in the Armenian genocide? There are nuances here.

It's called a genocide for a reason you fucking idiot. It's not a war

genocide =/= war.
Anyone who isn't an edgy /pol/tard Role Player can say without a shadow of a doubt that the Nazis were in the wrong, or that the Germans needlessly escalated things at the begging of WW1 and that the rape of Belgium was objectively wrong.

t. beady eyed anglo

Tell that retarded meme to the mongols, you dumb faggot

Lol
Next you'll tell me the rape on Nanking happened

>Germans needlessly escalated

Sure, as long as we admit the Russians did first, followed by the French and English

The Mongols believed it was their destiney to domesticate the world.

When then had broken in the wild horse nations of the world, then all could know peace, with Khan mounted atop in the saddle of course.

>applying modern/regional ethics to history

I seriously hope you kids don’t do this

I don't really see it like that. Everything was under a might makes right rule, so the weaker society get fucked. Especially with the whole business with the Khwarezmia shit, that one wasn't the mongol's fault

If you ignore how there were prospering societies before the invasion.

There are sometimes.
Like 1798, 1916 and the Irish war of Independence

Fucking patates

The rape of belgium was bad and all that, but so was the Armenian genocide, the Bengal famines, the Arab revolts deliberate terrorism on civilians, everything Russia ever touched, the life of every single soldier on the western front, and the deplorable treatment of Greece. The rape of Belgium wasn't even the worst thing done in the war, let alone the only thing, and every side participated in their own atrocities.

There is. The good side is the winning side.

>The Nazis were the good guys of the Battle of France

Huh

This.

"History is written by the victors" - Winston Churchill

>implying they weren't
Nazis liberated Vichy France from France,
They also liberated opressed fertile grasslands from Poland
They were the good guys.

When they say "written by the winners" they mean the winners of the war, not the winners of a specific phase of the war.

from the same minds who brought you good time shitposting, here's another expert critical thought experiment from that wizened sage, &humanites!

So why do Americans still think they didn’t lose Vietnam then?

Wrong. America had the moral higher ground in Vietnam.

...

same thing with anyone waging a war of aggression aka anybody able to do it.

because they also happen to be the kind of American who said that the civil war wasn't about slavery.

Because they didn't?

They won the war, then did not show up for the rematch.

>he thinks there were two American-Vietnam Wars

no, there was one, that ended with the Paris Peace Accords.

War crimes were committed by both sides in the war. Try again.

Nations don't have friends, only interests.

Lol, and what was that war called?

It was all part of the same war, Americans said they’d return if the North invaded and they had their bluff called HARD

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Exit_of_the_Americans:_1973.E2.80.9375

So you’re admitting there was no moral high ground?