We did not succumb as the German republic had done; we managed to keep afloat. We did not steal the show from the dictators. For Hitler understood the problem and mastered it. Without formally abolishing private property, as the Soviet had done, he subjected it to his orders and accomplished full employment, first on the rebuilding of cities, later on the building of his huge military machine. He thus gained the huge advantage in military preparedness which has brought the world to the brink of catastrophe.
He did it by using for his ends the instrument of economic planning which the democracies had neglected to use for democratic ends. The ironical result is that the economic planning we spurned, when it was needed for the sake of democracy, is now thrust on us by military necessity. Exactly the same reasoning applies to European reconstruction. Here is another democratic omission turned into a fascist opportunity. Several new states were carved out of it, others were enlarged by pieces carved out of it. The guiding principle in the reorganization was the Wilsonian principle of national self-determination.
This is one consequence of the previous, however obsolete, unity of all these peoples under the old monarchy. In addition, coming as they did from that unity, they were unable to make a living in separation. Their rabid mutual hostility made matters worse. What was vitally needed was outside leadership in organizing cooperation. A new unity should have been established to replace the Hapsburg monarchy. For, as America had been needed to win the war, so the peace could not be secured without her—this was in the nature of an arithmetical problem.
Left alone by the United States, France and England quarreled, and France, exhausted by the war and scared by the new unsolved problems, turned her back on the small states which depended on her for protection as well as for credits and for the sale of their products. France abandoned the Southeast to Hitler. This is a perfect parallel to the unemployment case. Thus, however, reluctantly, those small states helped make Hitler great.
See a Problem?
To force them to do this was the second contribution of the democracies towards the growth of Hitler. Pacifism was the ruling philosophy in all Western countries in the thirties. It dominated the German socialists, whom Hitler overwhelmed without a fight. The French learned too late that tyranny is worse than war, because it adds war to its other evils. In Britain, eleven million people, out of a total population of 45 millions, pledged themselves in a private canvass never to take up arms.
In the United States, the Congress went so far as to legislate neutrality in advance, i. Pacifism denotes an unselfish will to peace and a readiness to make sacrifices to this end. That there be such pacifism, as a reservation in the midst of turmoil, is all to the good. There is a world of difference between the religious pacifism and the political pacifism which teaches that the unjust and selfish man might suddenly be good and thus avoid that war which is only the consequence of his injustice and selfishness.
Political pacifism is absurd because it ignors the nature of man and the logic of history; its effect is invariably to favor the aggressor, and it did favor the Nazis and the Japanese. It is as true as ever that he who would save his life shall lose it! Pacifism is at least as much responsible for our plight as is pro-fascist appeasement policy.
The British and French labor parties joined their Tories and appeasers in the decision not to oppose seriously the march of the fascist powers into the Rhineland, Abyssinia, Spain, and Austria.
Even the British Navy entered the war with hardly more than half the number of destroyers which it had in The disastrous identification of social reformism with pacifism has been broken only in the person of President Roosevelt. The dividing line between political pacifism and pro-facist appeasement policy is not always easy to draw. The Chamberlain government, with which the name of appeasement is principally connected, showed its earnest will to peace by handing over to the Irish the strategic ports which the British still held in Eire under the treaty that gave Eire its freedom.
But the appeasers, in Britain as elsewhere, did try to make a deal with Hitler, at the expense of little Czechoslovakia and of the giant Soviet. They regarded Hitler as a godsend, who, by destroying the Soviet, would save their class prerogatives from the communist menace. They hoped the Soviet would be crushed between the pincers of the white and the yellow Aryans.
Gradually, from the results of this policy, did the Church come to realize that Hitler and Mussolini flattered her only to cheat her as soon as the power was theirs.
The fact that they do should never have been a secret to the Church. In France, the appeasers had their way; they overthrew the republic and capitulated to Hitler.
In Britain, the appease s were overthrown by the rising wrath of the people. While the Chinese were bleeding for us as well as for their own liberty, we made profitable deals with the Japanese and supplied them with the steel and oil, without which they could not have staged the war in China or the attack on Pearl Harbor. This war has often been denounced as a war of imperialism. It is one. But this, again, is no excuse for the Western democracies, whose imperialism has engendered so much enmity.
The Monroe Doctrine, for a hundred years, was regarded as a declaration of Yankee imperialism and dollar diplomacy by all peoples south of the Rio Grande.
The Just War of Unjust Nations - Providence
It is a shining tribute to our recent policy that the Filipinos fought as they did under the banners of MacArthur and Wainwright. They understand that under our protection they are expected and helped to develop self-rule, the only justifiable goal of foreign domination. The contrast between events in the Philippines and those in British Burma is telling. Disclaimer: All messages made available as part of this discussion group including any bulletin boards and chat rooms and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of CSSForum.
The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that CSSForum has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to the forum to report any objectionable message in site feedback.
Essay on ' a just war is better then an unjust peace'. User Name. Remember Me? Members List. Advanced Search. Find All Thanked Posts.
Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations
Page 1 of 2. Thread Tools.
- Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations by Michael Walzer.
- Site Index!
- university of queensland thesis collection;
- essay on national festivals and their importance.
- “Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense - The Objective Standard.
Search this Thread. Gulrukh Senior Member. Thnxxx Dear thnx a lot for help, wht abt outline???? Help me My attempt is not good I know but at least bata to do plzzzzzzz. Voltaire my hero. Usman Cheema Senior Member. Here goes mine: Introduction: Definition of war Definition of just war and unjust peace Body: Concept of Jus ad bellum When it is justifiable to go for war Concept of Jus in bella Conduct of war Presence of a legitimate authority to wage war Ultimate goal of just war is to re-establish peace Right intention Just cause Redress a wrong suffered Comparitive justice Liklehood of success Last resort Proportionality between voilence used weapons used Discrimination between combatants and non combatants Moral Problems Historical examples American civil war Wars of indepences fought by asian and african nations against Europeans in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Quote: Originally Posted by Usman Cheema Gul Though I am not that good on essay but in my opinion its a fine attempt but change that heading "how combatants should act" but don't change its contents.
- religious studies dissertation.
- Accessibility links;
- Main navigation;
- Cookies on the BBC website;
- is obama good for india essay.
- Is The Just War Theory??
- ap language and composition synthesis essay powerpoint.
Show Printable Version. Email this Page.
It only applies to states, and not to individuals although an individual can use the theory to help them decide whether it is morally right to take part in a particular war. Just War Theory provides a useful framework for individuals and political groups to use for their discussions of possible wars. The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts.
The doctrine of the Just War can deceive a person into thinking that because a war is just, it's actually a good thing. But behind contemporary war theory lies the idea that war is always bad. A just war is permissible because it's a lesser evil, but it's still an evil.
A war is only a Just War if it is both justified, and carried out in the right way. Some wars fought for noble causes have been rendered unjust because of the way in which they were fought. Search term:. Read more.