Was World War Ii a Legitimate War? in the Context of Just War Theory.

“For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.” These words were written by Murray N. Rothbard, dean of the Austrian School and founder of modern libertarianism, who spent much of his academic career trying to determine what, exactly, defined a “just war”. In fact, for as long as humans have been fighting wars, there have been quotations referring to the justification and moralities of wars and how warfare can be considered fair and acceptable to each society’s individual standards. While the time and place of each war differs, the reality of the devastation of battle may be found warranted by those fighting using these just war standards to vindicate their actions.

Just war can be traced back to the pagan teachings, which was later refined by Christian leaders to justify their followers into going to war (Cahill, 2005). St. Augustine was identified as the first to offer his view on war and justice, viewing war as a necessary evil if peace and justice were to come and labeling it as something practical when conflict arises. Later on, St. Thomas Aquinas revised Augustine’s version and added three more conditions: the war had to be waged by the proper authority, the cause had to be just, and the intentions had to be right. All of these additions and refinements lead to the same just war theory that we are familiar with today (Baer, 2006).

People go into war for countless reasons; however, power remains as one of the main factors of war. Wanting to have more power over the world can lead to a global conflict. By the end of the first world war, the Treaty of Versailles kept peace in Europe until Hitler of Germany began violating its contracts. Thus, began World War II that corrected the evil of Hitler with a justifiable cause. Although the second World War brought many casualties, World War II resulted as a justifiable war because it saved nations from German exploitation, began as a last resort after all forms of appeasement failed, and brought the German powers to an unconditional surrender.

Lastly, the notion to hurt one’s enemy peoples to force their government into a complete surrender and to minimize the general loss of one’s own troops is immoral. Naturally, the typical ethical standards of war would not justify any use of dehumanization in order for a nation to supersede the other. The Japanese became dehumanized in the minds of American combatants and civilians. The process enabled greater cultural and physical differences between white Americans and Japanese than between the former and their European foes. In Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars (1977), he defines “ the use of force by one nation against another is always wrong unless the latter has already forfeited its basic rights.” Walzer is clearly stating that wars; especially nuclear wars are unjust if they strip away basic civilian rights. In other words, they are ponds in a game of political and nuclear warfare.

World War 2 was known as the good war. The fight for democracy was a big deal to president Franklin and it was a very well fought war. America throughout the war learns to overcome things and start to become more accepting. The war helps unite both blacks and whites to a fight for the same goal. We get our revenge of the bombing at Pearl Harbor, we work with a very brutal dictator, and we tried to stay neutral for as long as we could. For example in doc 1 the president is advised to stay out of the war that it wasn’t worth it. The president ignores and goes on because he sees how the bombing of Pearl Harbor affects Americans. He explains how this is a fight for democracy and America will always have something to do with this. In doc 2 the president says he will be on your side as long as you have the same goal, to fight for democracy. This fight focuses on the fight for democracy while putting other things such as race aside.

War is often a time of bloody battles and numerous casualties; on both sides of the playing field. World War II was one of the bloodiest wars in history; it not only involved the mass genocide of a specific group of people, but it also brought on major changes in America. As a result of the war, many opportunities would open up for women in the work force. When the men were off fighting the war, there was a need for employees to take over the jobs that the men had to do. The emergence of women in the work field served as a catalyst for major events that would take place later on, like the Civil Rights Movement. The idea of “what it means to be a woman” in American society was put to the test, and throughout the war, women would have to constantly fight for their place in society; and the work force. The question arises, “was World War II a good war?” The previously stated question can be answered in a number of ways; race and ethnicity often had a hand in what jobs women could do, and social class also had an impact on what job position women had and how much money they would earn. To best answer the question, “was World War II a good war”; the different experiences of; African American, Japanese, and White women need to be analyzed in order to better understand whether World War II was a “good war”.

On 6 August 1945, a B-29 Superfortress flew over the islands of Japan and unleashed the devastating power of the world’s first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. Was the United States justified in dropping the bomb? This depends largely on your point of view. I believe that the U.S. was justified in dropping the nuclear bombs for three main reasons. The first was the unprovoked viscous attack on Pearl Harbor. The attack on Pearl Harbor which had taken place three and a half years before Hiroshima was bombed had taken the lives of countless innocent soldiers with innocent civilians, including women, and children also perishing. The United States had not been involved in the war as

Throughout history, many people have debated over the ethics of war and peace which lead to the creation of the just war theory. There have been a number of wars in the past and even in today’s world that have been proven to be unjustified by the means of this theory. Any war in my opinion, is hard to justify due to the violence, destructiveness, the nature of humans doing during war, and the impact it has on humans and the world. However, I have chosen to discuss why America’s decision to jump in to World War II was justified and by proving it by using the just war theory, mainly focusing on jus ad bellum.

The legitimate defense of a nation and the responsibility of the Security Council to take actions in the course of maintaining peace within its areas of influence. With the establishment of United Nations and the modernization of war and its materials; the theories and doctrines of the past also needed to evolve. The modern Just war theory in composed of two principles: jus ad bellum, the right to conduct war, and jus in bello, the correct conduct within war. Each principle also has its own set of criteria to follow. Jus ad bellum contains six: Just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, and proportionality. (Orend, 2006)

St. Augustine provided comments on morality of war from the Christian point of view (railing against the love of violence that war can engender) as did several critics in the intellectual flourishing from the 9th to 12th centuries. Just war theorists remind warriors and politicians alike that the principles of justice following war should be universalizable and morally ordered and that winning should not provide a license for imposing unduly harsh or punitive measures or that state or commercial interests should not dictate the form of new peace. “The attraction for jus post bellum thinkers is to return to the initial justice of the war”. This means that war is considered as self-defense.

The conflict between the Allies and the Axis was a horrific and deadly one, which consisted of genocide and mass bombings. Innocent citizens were killed with the estimated sixty million casualties, which lead to the question as to the morality of the different actors—Germany, Japan, England and America— in WWII. In order to truly assess their guilt, meaning their moral innocence, each country will be measured upon the morality of their intent and execution of the different controversial mass killings that Germany (the Holocaust), Japan (Nanking), and the Allied forces (Dresden and Hiroshima) took part in. This hierarchy of evil can be judged upon how Japan’s tyranny and the Allies’ area bombing compare to the genocide performed by Germany. Similarly, these countries will be judged on the whether these different acts were premeditated versus in response to another act, as well as the proportionality to which these acts were carried out. This measurement of evil places each party on an overall scale, which depicts the total guilt that each country or countries deserve. WWII exemplifies that while war is an unavoidable aspect of human nature, there is no such thing as a just war. Similarly, while there is a definite hierarchy of morality between the different actors of WWII, each of the countries at play are immoral in their intent and execution of the attacks on opposing countries.

According to traditional just war theory, a just cause must serve peace and not simply protect an unjust status quo. War must be used as a last resort and all pacifistic approaches must be

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. A war is only a Just War if it is both justified, and carried out in the right way. The circumstances of Just-War Theory must be of: Last Resort, Legitimate Authority, Just Cause, Probability of Success, Right Intention, Proportionality, and Civilian Casualties.

The Just War Theory is a doctrine founded by Saint Augustine which has helped bring much discussion and debate to wars and the morality to fight in them. Wars and fights between people have gone on forever and are not perceived to stop anytime soon so it is important that some people thought about when and why they should ever fight. For many years Christians never part toke in this fighting due to teachings of the Bible and Jesus' teaching on 'turning the other cheek' and 'live by the sword, die by the sword'. Saint Augustine would be one of the first to talk about how a Christian could be a soldier and serve God at the same time. Through this thought we would receive the Just War Theory which gave a set of requirements for someone to partake

Jus in Bello falls between two broad categories of discrimination and proportionality. Discrimination and proportionality are key factors that must be considered when engaging in war. For example, Michael Walzer argues, “war should only occur between combatants – soldier to soldier and noncombatants should be shielded from harm”. 2 Essentially, this means during times of conflict only legitimate targets should be targeted, combatants should distinguish against whom is attacked and should not include innocent bystanders. Furthermore, Alexander Moseley states, “In waging war, it is considered unfair and unjust to attack indiscriminately since non-combatants or innocents are deemed to stand outside the field of war”. 3 Unfortunately, this can be difficult at times since it may be hard to distinguish a combatant from a non-combatant especially since they do not always wear a uniform or carry arms, making it impossible to distinguish between them.