The justification of violence in World War I can be debated from various perspectives. Some argue that the war was a response to aggression and imperial ambitions, making military action necessary to defend national sovereignty and uphold alliances. Others contend that the scale of violence and the resulting devastation, including the loss of millions of lives, raises moral questions about the justification of such conflict. Ultimately, the complexities of geopolitics, nationalism, and the consequences of war challenge any clear justification for violence.
It made Ottoman leaders sus of groups that were not Turkish or Muslim. (APEX)
to show that they meant no mercy
I believe you are asking what started World War I and that would be the assassination of the Austria-Hungary leader
world war 2 was the most violent war the world has ever witnessed world war 2 was so deadly
No, since noine should be afraid to voice their own opinion
It made Ottoman leaders sus of groups that were not Turkish or Muslim. (APEX)
Yes Pierre trudeau was justified in using the war measures act. It was the only defence to cease the FLQs violence.
i don't think so
War is sometimes considered justified when it is used as a last resort to protect a country's security or to defend against aggression.
War is sometimes justified when it is necessary to defend against aggression, protect human rights, or restore peace and security.
fighting and violence
Ya. Its a War Game.
I think that there is a lot of violence in Algeria because there was a war there , and ever since that war everything has gotten all mixed up ! And bloody !
All wars are "controlled violence"
to show that they meant no mercy
The United States wasn't at war with Japan in WW1.
It starts fights then it starts war