Day 4 – Q 4.Do you think any of the warring sides could have taken the high moral ground after what happened during the World Wars? Give your opinion.
4. Do you think any of the warring sides could have taken the high moral ground after what happened during the World Wars? Give your opinion. .
क्या आपको लगता है कि कोई भी युद्धरत पक्ष विश्व युद्ध के दौरान उच्च नैतिक स्थान ले सकता सकता था? अपना सुझाव दीजिये।
Introduction:
The Great War was never considered the “war to end all wars” by the states and armed forces in conflict. The war’s legacies were processed in a wide variety of ways depending on forms of government, geostrategic situations, moral/material capacities, and public will. Their common denominator was recognition that successful future war-making depended on a synergy between an effective government and a strong citizenry.
Body:
The term world war is typically applied to the two conflicts that happened during the 20th century:
- World War I, or First World War (1914-1918): World War I was fought between the Allied Powers and the Central Powers. The main members of the Allied Powers were France, Russia, and Britain. The United States also fought on the side of the Allies after 1917. The main members of the Central Powers were Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria.
- World War II, or Second World War (1939-1945): The principal belligerents were the Axis powers—Germany, Italy, and Japan—and the Allies—France, Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and, to a lesser extent, China. The war was in many respects a continuation, after an uneasy 20-year hiatus, of the disputes left unsettled by World War I.
Jus post bellum (Latin for “Justice after war”) is a concept that deals with the morality of the termination phase of war. The idea has some historical pedigree as a concept in just war theory. In modern times, it has been developed by a number of just war theorists and international lawyers.
Yes, warring sides should have taken high moral ground after world wars because of following reasons:
- A bad peace is not only a definite recipe for misery, but far more often than not is merely a prelude to further violent conflict
- As war is also choice, peace is also a vital thing.
- To ensure human rights and peaceful society.
- For social, political, economical, legal, and cultural progress of the society.
No, warring sides shouldn’t take high moral ground after world wars because of following reasons:
- Consequences should be faced, as war was with mutual consent.
- It gives little room for revolution, learning and changes on either side.
- Morality after the war does not solve the purpose of the war. It may be perceived as a pacifying act.
- Rational self-interest and welfare of their own people plays a huge role.
- Economic issues after the war is the very big concern.
Conclusion:
To honour unknown sacrifices, we must heed past lessons so that such needless sacrifice is not forced upon many millions in the future. In many ways, this one-hundred-year-old conflict is shaping our world today more than any of the wars that have been fought since.
