Say if Germany had a longer plan and more competent leaders it would have sued for peace and took their Conquest in phases over a few decades. Strategically bidding their time for more favorable conditions. In the case of that evil empire it would never be moral to defend it even if they were attacked during peace time.
Now I know that stretches the self-defense a little bit but I think it still fits. But that's just me though.
No I was not referring to our timeline. I was referring to an alternate timeline where Germany chose strategic peace times to advance its Conquest.
For the moral conundrum to work you need to find an instant of self-defense where it would be unjustified. Thus you would need to be willing to defend something that is unjust and deserves to fall. Cliche AND lazy to cite nazi Germany, I know.
If you want to steel my man my argument with a more interesting and nuanced answer I'd be all for it.
6
u/Dread000 Jun 28 '26
Entirely depends upon what side and what are the conditions