World War II as a Just War - Essay Example

World War II as a 'Just war' and Section # of Wars have continued to be fought sincethe beginning of times. Be it through swords, catapults or weapons of mass destruction, wars can never be fully eradicated because somewhere sometime, there would be a disagreement. Thousands of wars have taken place since time immemorial and hundreds of small conflicts and big wars during this century. Out of all the wars which took place in this century, the Second World War is considered to be the only occasion where one side of the conflict could be justified as following the criteria required for fighting a 'Just war'. The World war two was a global war of all the major military nations including the super powers. The countries were divided into two groups: The Allies and the Axis. Germany, Japan and their allies formed the 'Axis' while US, Britain and its allies as the 'Allies'. This essay would validate this claim that the war fought by the 'Allies' was a just war, by describing the true nature and criteria required to name a war as a 'Just war'. The basis of the 'Just war' is the point that no matter what the circumstances become, the prospect of war certainly means death and slaughter but at a certain point war becomes inevitable. This could be seen since the wars in the olden times. Though the criteria differ in nature but the moral considerations of the war are the same. Under these conditions, a certain criteria should be met before waging any war to make that war a 'Just war'. Just war theory is actually a collection of moral considerations which limits the devastations caused by warfare. This may involve the fair treatment of women and children treatment to maintaining an honorable code of conduct during the war. 'Just war' theory could be subdivided into two sets: The first being the jus ad bellum which actually means right to wage a war and the second being jus in bello which signifies proper conduct during the war. Jus ad bellum and jus in bello are further divided so we would look at them separately. (Coates) Jus ad bellum: The most basic part of jus ad bellum is that any war which would be fought should have a just cause. Just cause actually implies that war must be initiated in order to defend one's country or another country from another violent or oppressive country. The reasons for going to a war must not be to gain material gain, to capture lands or to punish people. The reasons should be humanitarian; a war should only be fought to protect the innocent lives which are in danger and not to put more innocent lives at stake. This is however difficult to determine which side of the conflict has a 'just cause' because every side considers its cause as just. Even though the Nazis are considered to be brutal and murderers, they themselves considered their cause of war just. If we come back to the World War II, we can easily make out that the Allies fought the Axis to put an end to their monstrosities and it was due to their efforts, that many countries, for example Poland and Australia did not fall to the Nazi regime of Germany. The best example in this regard is the holocaust of the Germans against the Jews which was ended as a result of this war. The Allies therefore had a just cause of fighting because they wanted to put an end to the war provoked by the Axis. Another important part of the jus ad bellum is the 'just intention' which means that the intentions behind going to a war should be just. This is often confused with the 'just cause' concept because both speak of the aims and goals of a war but the basic difference between the two is that a war may be fought with a 'just cause' but not with a 'just intention'. This could be illustrated by the example that to attack a country in order to put an end to the oppressive government is a 'just cause' but by toppling that government if the intention is to form a government which is inclined towards the attacker country is not considered a 'just intention'. In the case of World War II, the intention of the Allies was not to capture or annex the German territory; the intention was to put an end to the aggressive and oppressive governments of Japan and Germany so that they are replaced by governments who are devoted to peace-keeping. Thus we could say that the World War II was fought not with merely a 'just cause' but also with a 'just intention' (Cline) A war should be fought after it has been authorized by a legitimate authority. This forms the third principle of the jus ad bellum. However the main problem with this principle is the problem that who could be called as a legitimate authority. In the world of the today this authority is the 'United Nations' and any country has to follow the criteria set by the UN to wage a just war otherwise the nation becomes guilty of being 'rogue'. On top of it, the decision to go to war should not be kept a secret. It should be publicly announced to the citizens of the state as well to the citizens of attacked country. In the Second World War, we could rule out this principle as all the nations and the super powers were engaged in the war and no superior authority existed which could vouchsafe for them. In addition to the above underlying principles, it is necessary that war should be chosen as the last option and not as the first option. This is known as the war being the 'Last resort'. In simpler terms it means that any state should only go to a war after everything else has failed. This means that the state has negotiated on diplomatic terms, provided alternatives and exhausted all other options. After all these deliberations, if no other way could be found out then the war should be waged as the 'last resort'. Even in the Second World War, the allies advanced after much deliberation and when no other alternative could be found to stop the Axis invasion that is, they chose war as a 'Last resort'. The Axis were unstoppable especially the Germans who continued to kill, torture and capture to satisfy themselves. No more talks could be a held and only a decisive action like going to war could stop them, and the Allies took this action although a bit late. However it is too hard to ignore that if the step to take arms against the axis had been taken earlier and not been kept as a 'Last resort', the devastations of the bloody war might have been prevented. 'Probability of Success' forms another important part. This means that war should only be waged if there is a fair chance of victory. This is particularly important to understand because if any side goes on a war even though it does not have the power to win a decisive victory then it is better to abandon the prospect of war as killing of so many lives without any gain could only be termed as immoral. In the World War II, the Allies were a group of many nations including powerful nations like America and Britain. And as such they had a strong military force as well as modern weaponry which they needed to counter the threat of the Axis. Therefore the allies had a fair chance of victory if they went to war. And even though the war took so many lives, the outcome saved the world from much worse. (Baker, 2008) A war is should not only be fought with the sole aim of achieving the goals. Moral considerations are necessary when fighting during the war and this is covered by the other half of the just war theory which is known as jus in bello. Jus in bello: Jus in bello is a set of criterion which states the code of conduct which should be maintained during the war. The first one of these is the 'Proportionality'. The principle of 'Proportionality' implies that the actions during the war should be in line or proportional to the intended goals. War could hardly be called as a moral action but any action which is taken should result in more good than evil, for example: Killing a band of soldiers with guns to capture a city could be called as 'just', however using a nuclear bomb, which would cause immense devastation, could hardly be called as 'just'. Based on this criterion, the Second World War could not be called as 'just' because it was the result of two atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki which prompted the Axis to surrender and lead the Allies to victory. The bombs left a destructive long-lasting impact on the native people and many died because of the resulting radiations. Even though the war might have taken more time, this could have been prevented by using troops and more military power rather than nuclear bombs to put an end to the war. (Zinn, 2001) The second criterion for waging a war is the 'Noncombatant Immunity'. This means that during the war, discrimination between the combatants and the civilians or non-combatants should be maintained at all costs. This principle really adheres to the ethics of the war as killing innocent people with the military personals could hardly be justified. Death of some civilians is inevitable during a war but the deaths could be brought to a minimum level if the above principle is followed. During the Second World War, the major target of the Allied troops were only the militants and not the civilians, however their struggles were marred by the deaths of thousands of civilians caused by the nuclear bombing. The nuclear bombing destroyed the entire cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the death toll of the civilians reached a million people who were living in these cities. The devastating effects were even visible on the survivors who became physically impaired or caught some disease which resulted in a painful death. Another example in this regard is that although the World War II ended the holocaust, millions more innocent people got killed in it than the holocaust itself. Conclusively, it could be said that a war would only produce desired results and cut the death toll to a minimum if the above given principles are followed. Out of all the wars fought in the last century, none could boast of following this criteria an through above analysis, we could make out that even the World War II could not actually be signified completely as a 'Just war'. Works Cited Baker, N. (2008). Human smoke. Barnes and Noble. Cline, A. (n.d.). Explanation and Criteria. Retrieved June 1, 2009, from Just War Theory: http://atheism.about.com/od/warandmorality/a/justwartheory.htm Coates, A. J. The ethics of war. 1997: Manchester University Press. Zinn, H. (2001, December). A Just Cause, Not a Just War. The Progressive . Read More