The Pros And Cons Of The Second World War

1583 Words null Page
There is no doubt that over human history war has brought death, destruction, merciless slaughter and poverty in its wake as it sweeps a country or continent up like a tsunami. Almost two decades after the Great War, we humans are back at each other’s necks in the second world war. Have we not learned from our past mistakes? Was the first world war already a distant memory? It seems so as it is still the twentieth century and countries are invading others to see who can vie for dominance in a territory, maybe in the twenty-first century, we will evolve enough to change our ways. Although war leads to the worst calamities in history, we must realize that it is a part of human history, our inescapable evil. A glance at a history textbook of the …show more content…
Japan being a constitutional monarchy would not listen to others expect for their “god emperor”, who wanted to conquer more land. The probability of success for the US was high as the US had many more resources and allies to support its war machine throughout the war. Lastly, proportionally the war would secure the just cause and provide the US economy with more jobs. As stated in the article “just war theory insists all six criteria must be fulfilled for a particular declaration of war to be justified: it’s all or no justification” (6). As all of the criteria was met the war in the Pacific was a just …show more content…
But the information they forget to mention is that in the second world war, civilians in the cities were part of the war effort since all sides mobilized all their resources to defeat the other side. Every bomb dropped, every bullet fired, every warplane made to fly over other countries for raids, every tank used to charge into the enemy lines, every uniform sewed together. All were made by the collective strength of the civilians of a country. Clearly the soldiers are not forging their own weapons and uniforms, they have to have come from somewhere and be used to kill enemy soldiers overseas. Therefore, they were a part of the army as a whole and aiding the army in putting up the resistance they had even while they were on the losing end. Besides if civilians were entitled to “absolute immunity that would outlaw all warfare” (13) In fact, a pacifistic ideal would never have solved the war, instead it would have blown the whole war way out of proportion say for example, if Winston Churchill was a pacifist and decided to talk with Hitler about the ‘Blitz.’ He would most likely have to hand over the country or England would have been taken over by force with its leader refusing to send out the RAF. “Effective non-violent resistance depends upon the scruples of those it is aimed against” (11) for example, Gandhi’s campaign for

Related Documents