THE UNNECESSARY WAR (WINSTON CHURCHILL: WERE WORLD WAR I AND II NECESSARY AND INEVITABLE?) – WAR: LAW OF WAR, THE EFFECT OF WAR, AND ALTERNATIVES TO WAR TODAY.

INTRODUCTION

What is war?

War is a complex and multifaceted concept characterized by organized and often prolonged conflict involving states, nations, or other groups using armed force to achieve specific political, social, or economic objectives. It is typically distinguished by intense violence, widespread destruction, and significant human and material costs. Understanding the nature of war involves exploring its historical, sociological, political, economic, and psychological dimensions.

There isn’t a singular definition of war universally accepted across all disciplines. Instead, various perspectives offer nuanced insights into its nature and implications. For instance, from a historical standpoint, war has been a recurrent phenomenon throughout human history. Ancient conflicts, documented in archaeological findings and historical texts, illustrate the prevalence and evolution of warfare across civilizations. For example, the works of military historians like Carl von Clausewitz ("On War") and Thucydides ("History of the Peloponnesian War") provide deep insights into the nature of conflicts and the factors driving them.

Sociologically, war is often analyzed in terms of its impact on societies, including changes in social structures, values, and norms during wartime. The concept of "total war," introduced during the 20th century, expanded the scope of conflicts to involve entire societies, affecting civilians and non-combatants significantly. Sociologists like C. Wright Mills and Emile Durkheim have explored the societal implications of war in their respective works.

From a political perspective, war is often seen as a means to achieve strategic objectives, maintain or alter power relations, or address conflicts of interest between states or groups. Political scientists and international relations theorists, such as Kenneth Waltz and Hans Morgenthau, have contributed to the understanding of war as a tool of statecraft and its impact on global politics.

Moreover, the economic implications of war cannot be overlooked. Wars have substantial economic consequences, affecting trade, resources, production, and allocation of wealth. The works of economists like John Maynard Keynes and Joseph Schumpeter delve into the economic aspects of war, including its impact on economies and post-war reconstruction.

Psychologically, war involves intricate dynamics, including the psychology of warfare, the effects of combat on individuals, trauma, PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), and the motivations behind participating in or supporting war efforts. Psychologists and researchers like Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo have studied the psychological aspects of conflict and obedience to authority in wartime situations.

During this age of instantaneous global media exposure, there's a tendency to presume a widespread comprehension of this intricate topic. Cicero, the Roman philosopher and statesman, penned his thoughts on this matter in the 1st century B.C. defines war as “a contending by force.

Quincy Wright, an American political scientist and expert in international law, incorporates the notions of "armed combatants" and "legality" within his definition of war as a "legal state that equally authorizes two or more factions to engage in armed conflict." Webster’s Dictionary defines war as “a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations”. Generally, war can be defined as an armed conflict involving two or more opposing parties, each with significant reasons motivating their engagement - a description that is admittedly oversimplified.

Law of War

Dr. Michael Walzer of the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton discusses law of war as a comprehensive framework consisting of articulated norms, customs, professional codes, legal principles, religious and philosophical beliefs, and reciprocal arrangements when elucidating this concept. For the scope of this analysis, the ensuing definition will be satisfactory: The law of war comprises a compilation of unwritten guidelines and formally written regulations originating from diverse sources, each serving a particular purpose.

The law of war originates from two separate sources. It draws partly from unwritten general principles referred to as "customary international law," while the specific details of this law stem from a set of codified rules termed "conventional international law." The unwritten rules are acknowledged as norms governing the behavior of all nations, while the codified rules are binding due to explicit consent.

One source defines customary international law as a set of legal principles emerging from the "general and consistent practice of States adhered to due to a sense of legal duty." Another source describes it as the result of states following a "general and consistent practice driven by the belief that international law necessitates such conduct." Furthermore, this source outlines two criteria necessary for a concept to ascend to this level: the existence of an actual practice or act and the belief by states that they are bound by a legal obligation. The crucial points to note about this facet of the law of war are that customary international law primarily comprises unwritten cultural norms and widely accepted practices, the criteria of an "act" and a "belief" determine its establishment, and a state cannot retract its commitment to uphold customary international law.

The second source, known as conventional international law, encompasses an extensive compilation of laws, treaties, declarations, and protocols developed over numerous centuries. It is comparatively simpler to understand than customary international law but might be more challenging to establish. For instance, the codified aspect of the law of war comprises explicit laws governing specific behaviors during armed conflict, necessitating consensus among an international assembly of legal experts and political figures for these laws to attain full force under international law. Adding complexity, this body of legal materials typically evolves in response to global events that uncover pre-existing deficiencies in codes related to the laws of war only after such events have occurred.

The law of war establishes limitations on armed conflict, particularly concerning the conduct of combatants during action and the treatment of individuals and entities affected by war, notably those who become victims. Over the course of history, especially in the last three centuries, a body of written laws has expanded in response to various global events, particularly conflicts of varying scales. Among the most widely acknowledged sets of these laws are found in two categories of treaties - The Hague and Geneva Conventions. The Hague Conventions comprise two key treaties addressing general hostilities and the behavior expected from combatants. On the other hand, the Geneva Conventions, encompassing four distinct conventions and two protocols, focus on protective measures for civilians and prisoners of war. Notably, the Hague Conventions recognized the limitations of conventional international law to address or predict all potential regulatory needs, hence stipulating that in the absence of relevant treaty laws, civilians and combatants must still adhere to the protections and restrictions outlined by customary international law.

Purpose of War Regulation

Why did the evolution of the law of war occur, given that engaging in war is internationally accepted as a legitimate method of resolving conflicts? Potentially because inherent in human nature is rationality, prompting acknowledgment of the necessity to balance military capabilities with long-term societal harmony as weaponry and tactics advanced. Historian Peter Paret highlights that writings on war during the 16th and 17th centuries generally fell into two categories: pioneering works in the realm of international law and pioneering works detailing advancements in military technology. Before this period, warfare commonly followed the Machiavellian model advocating unregulated war, later embodied in what Paret identified as Francis Bacon's "unapologetic promotion of unrestrained war.

However, the societal repercussions arising from the Thirty Years' War sparked the emergence of a group of individuals who opposed the uncontrolled destructiveness that characterized war on the Continent. Among these figures, the most prominent was Dutchman Hugo Grotius, who championed an approach advocating measures to safeguard the rights of private individuals. They believed that the law of nature encompassed fundamental principles suited to governing nations, collectively endorsing a central principle described by Paret as "nations should do to one another the most good in peace, and the least possible evil in war.

The Purpose of the Law of War

At its fundamental essence, the law of war serves as the legal framework through which humanity governs its behavior during times of armed conflict. We've previously discussed the motivations behind regulating war, and the law of war acts as the mechanism to achieve those objectives. According to one source, the law of war endeavors to limit and alleviate the horrors of war, balancing military necessities with humanity's requirements by distinguishing between permissible and impermissible actions. Another source asserts that the law of war integrates humanitarian considerations into warfare (as demonstrated by the influence of organizations such as the International Committees of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent) and can function as a strategic advantage. In essence, the primary purpose of the law of war is to ensure the protection of all involved parties in a conflict, empower international judicial bodies, regulate wartime conduct to minimize suffering, and, above all, enable the eventual restoration of peace.

 

The Unifying Themes of War

A law serves one of two objectives: either to prohibit behavior or to manage behavior. There exist two cohesive themes that collectively form the essence of the law of war. The initial theme, encapsulated by the term jus ad bellum, refers to the legal and philosophical aspects of the law of war aimed at averting armed conflicts and, in cases where prevention fails, defining the circumstances under which war should be initiated. The second theme, designated by the term jus in bello, pertains to the components of the law of war designed to govern or manage the actions of combatants involved in armed conflict - it delineates the principles guiding the conduct of warfare.

The concept of Jus ad bellum predates the other theme. It delineates the conditions that validate the legal and moral justifications for utilizing military force. Early societies directed their concerns regarding armed conflicts toward formulating guidelines for the rightful application of force and dedicated minimal intellectual attention to controlling the implementation of such force. There was a widespread acceptance that if armed conflict was deemed legally justified, limitations on its application were deemed unnecessary. This progression prompts the inquiry: What precisely constitutes a "just war"?

Throughout history, the tradition of a "just war," encompassing a set of mutually accepted rules governing combat, tends to develop commonly between culturally akin adversaries. In situations where two warring groups share a range of common values, it's frequently observed that they implicitly or explicitly establish boundaries for their warfare. Conversely, when opposing factions significantly differ due to varying religious beliefs, ethnicity, or language, perceiving each other as fundamentally distinct or inferior, adherence to war conventions becomes infrequent. Only when adversaries perceive one another as a unified group, sharing a moral identity and with whom they anticipate future peaceful interactions, do they formulate implicit or explicit regulations concerning the conduct of wars. This formulation includes considerations about who should participate, how wars should be conducted, and the nature of relations post-war. In part, the motivation behind establishing or agreeing to these conventions can be seen as mutually advantageous—preferred over resorting to deceitful tactics or weaponry that might instigate an endless cycle of retaliatory actions or actions that have previously proven detrimental to the political or moral interests of both sides.

In the 1st century B.C., Cicero articulated that a state should only engage in war when defending its honor or safety. Additionally, he outlined specific conditions that needed to be met for a war to be justified: proper declaration by authorities, notifying the opponent of the declaration, and offering a chance for peaceful negotiation before conflict ensued. This endeavor to establish criteria for justification likely marked the initial formal effort, particularly in the Western context, to create a universally acknowledged method of commencing war—essentially, the early foundations of jus ad bellum.

As Empire expanded, the rationale for justifying war became increasingly intricate and subject to differing interpretations. This led the burgeoning Christian Church to reassess its pacifist stance, considering the practical necessities of survival against invading groups like the barbarians. Consequently, early Christian scholars such as Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas endeavored to harmonize church teachings with pragmatic politics by replacing the Roman legal standards for justifying war with a moral or religious standpoint. They framed a perspective where the forces of good battled against evil, seeking God's blessing for the Empire's necessary wars for survival. This resulting doctrine of just war progressed into the initial of the two themes within the law of war.

Over twelve centuries following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the influence of theologians from the church pervaded all facets of Western society, including political theory. Saint Augustine, in the 5th century, merged the Roman viewpoint on just war with emerging Christian beliefs and the pragmatic reality of survival. He ultimately developed a political theory regarding just war, with a religious perspective intertwined.

Acknowledging Cicero's definition of a just war as one that sought retribution for an affront to honor or property, Augustine also recognized the three Roman principles of just war: a legitimate cause, declaration by proper authority, and the objective of peace. However, Augustine attributed one fundamental purpose to war: it was the means through which God either punished humanity or absolved them of sins. From this standpoint, Augustine posited that any war ordained by God was inherently just. Following this line of thought, it logically followed (from a Western viewpoint) that war was an acceptable instrument of God's will. Therefore, any state leader could morally justify declaring war if it was construed as supporting God's will, however broadly interpreted.

This shift in approach, from an objective Roman perspective to a morality-centered view, was a fusion of early political philosophy and Christian theology's concepts of good and evil. This fusion remained largely unaltered until the mid-13th century. As just-war theorist Paul Christopher noted, Beginning with Augustine, war... became more than just a legal remedy for injustice; it became a moral imperative. This morality-centric approach to jus ad bellum, markedly distinct from the Romans' objective outlook, represented a synthesis of early political thought and Christian theology, and endured until later centuries.

Aquinas made a notable contribution to jus ad bellum theory by extensively presenting secular examples and analyzing each category of justification. His stipulation that a just war must be declared by the appropriate authority reflects ancient Roman practices. However, Aquinas redefines proper authority as an entity not subject to higher secular levels. In a subsequent study, he broadens the definition of just cause" to encompass actions taken to avenge wrongs, penalize a state for refusing to make amends for these wrongs, and restore unlawfully seized property. The third and final characteristic of a just war, according to Aquinas, involves conducting the war with the "right intentions," which include motives such as promoting good, ensuring peace, punishing evil, and avoiding further wrongdoing. Notably, Aquinas asserts that a war adhering to the first two characteristics (declared by proper authority and fought for a just cause) could still be considered unjust if not prosecuted with the right intentions. His work amalgamated the ideologies of Greek and Roman philosophers and early church theologians, amalgamating these with the pragmatic political stance prevalent in medieval Europe. Aquinas' codification of these three jus ad bellum principles persisted for 300 years, laying the groundwork for the subsequent influential law-of-war theorist, Hugo Grotius.

Hugo Grotius, perhaps second only to Dr. Francis Lieber, wielded a profound influence on the evolution of the law of war. To grasp the magnitude of Grotius' impact on the law of war overall, and specifically on jus ad bellum, understanding the context of the early 17th-century Europe in which he lived, studied, and wrote is crucial—an environment shaped by the devastation of the Thirty Years War.

Hugo Grotius, a jurist and humanist of the 17th century, gained global recognition following his victorious handling of a significant legal dispute involving the seizure of a Portuguese merchant ship by Holland. This high-profile case, coupled with the extensive research he conducted to support his argument, propelled him toward further exploration in the realm of international law. Grotius had already developed an interest in this field due to his observations during the Thirty Years War. He is most renowned for encapsulating his views on international law in the three-volume work titled "De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres" (The Law of War and Peace). In the prologue of this influential work, he characterizes the Europe of his era with these words:

“Throughout the Christian world I observed a lack of restraint in relations to war, such as even barbarous races should be ashamed of; I observed that men rush to arms for slight causes, or no cause at all, and that when arms have once been taken up there is no longer any respect for law, divine or human; it is as if, in accordance with a general decree, frenzy had openly been let loose for the committing of all crimes”

Grotius expanded upon the three previously discussed just-war principles (declaration by legitimate authority, fighting for a just cause, and fighting with right intentions) by introducing five additional elements. Understanding the context of his era and the impact of the Thirty Years War clarifies that his primary aim was to prevent war whenever feasible, or at the very least, to mitigate its societal impact. These supplementary principles included:

1.      War must consider proportionality, ensuring that the war's ultimate goal aligns proportionally with the societal impact or damage the war may cause.

2.      War should be pursued with a reasonable likelihood of success.

3.      War ought to be publicly declared.

4.      War should only be employed as a last resort.

5.      War must be conducted justly.

Grotius' influence on the development of jus ad bellum was substantial due to his perspective grounded in natural law, advocating limitations on rulers and states. Significantly, his proposition that natural law held sway over all individuals and communities elevated it above canonical law. Consequently, when Grotius' principles were articulated in The Law of War and Peace, secular leaders across Europe promptly acknowledged them as the most suitable guidelines for conducting warfare in international diplomacy on the Continent. By substituting church influence with a code rooted in natural law, Grotius aimed to eradicate the prospect of wars waged solely for religious reasons. Wars remained possible but were now subject to a more objective checklist for justification, open to international scrutiny. This compilation of eight jus ad bellum principles, along with the identification of four legitimate causes for waging a just war (defense, repossession of property, recovery of debts, and punishment), has steered the international community for over 375 years and generally aligns with customary international law. Nevertheless, a comprehensive analysis of the law of war necessitates a discussion of its second unifying theme, the regulation of wartime conduct, typically encompassed in conventional international law referred to as jus in bello.

Grotius proposed three inquiries designed to function as regulatory guidelines for jus in bello: identifying who could be lawfully targeted, determining the permissible means of engagement, and establishing standards for the treatment of prisoners. These guiding principles continued to develop over the subsequent four centuries. For instance, in 1863, Dr. Francis Lieber referred to "justice," "faith," and "honor" in his Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field. During World War I, a US Army publication on the law of war advocated the application of "necessity," "humanity," and "chivalry" in combat. Present-day law-of-war doctrine acknowledges the significance of three fundamental principles—"discrimination," "proportionality," and "responsibility"—as the cornerstone upon which combatants must base their actions.

Causes of war

In its essence, war intensifies, leading to a series of actions and reactions, each countered by a stronger response until one of the parties involved is depleted. The impact of war significantly burdens the economy and society of the nations at war, often causing irreversible transformations in their culture and profoundly influencing their political landscape for extended periods. As famously articulated by Clausewitz:

War is always a serious means for a serious object….Such is War, such the Commander who conducts it; such the theory which rules it. But War is not pastime; no mere passion for venturing and winning; no work of a free enthusiasm: it is a serious means for a serious object (Clausewitz et al, 2008, pg. 30).

 

War stems from inherent human traits and behaviors, encompassing a range of psychological factors, emotions, and inherent characteristics that constitute the core human experience. Among the fundamental traits shared universally among humans across societies are our imperfections and the inherent differences that have shaped cultural norms throughout history. Although humans are not inherently predisposed towards war and destruction, conflicts arise as a result of envy, selfishness, and the instinct for self-preservation. Kenneth Waltz, in his analysis of "the first image" in "Man, the State, and War," contends that all "other causes are secondary," highlighting that the passions leading to war already exist latent within a society (Clausewitz et al., 2008, p. 33).

Another common human trait is the inherent need for security, succinctly explained by Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Maslow posits that when physiological needs are reasonably fulfilled, a new set of needs emerges, categorized as the safety needs (Maslow, 1943, p. 6). Additionally, Liberty Hobbes observed that "everyone in a state of nature fears for his safety, and each is out to injure the other before he is injured himself" (Waltz, 2001, p. 93). In the realm of international relations, theoretical frameworks often refer to this need for safety among societal groups as the concept of security.

Security closely aligns with the subjective perception of safety within a particular societal group. Arnold Wolfers defines security as "the absence of threats to acquire values objectively, while subjectively, it is the absence of fear that such values will be attacked" (Baylis et al., 2017, p. 240). Although state power and military capability may quantify security, it primarily manifests as a feeling—a lack of threat-induced anxiety—on an individual level.

Despite various causes of conflict, human beings often justify their actions based on the belief that their morality is superior, a notion that has perpetuated conflicts throughout history. St. Augustine of Hippo set a precedent for justifying violence in pursuit of the "common good," a concept based on societal norms. The commonly embraced just war tradition asserts that any conflict aimed at achieving a state of peace is acceptable, guided by the principles of jus ad bellum, Jus in bello, and jus post bellum, each incorporating varying levels of subjectivity (Baylis et al., 2017, p. 215).

Acknowledging that the fundamental need for safety ingrained in human nature extends to the state, compelling a drive for security competition manifested in weaponry advancements, preemptive measures, and power equilibrium to ensure the state's ideological continuity, enables us to delve deeper into the repercussions of this conflict. However, the underlying motives behind these actions often differ significantly from the primary pursuit of security. Throughout history, conflicts have typically centered on societies or groups seeking to impose their beliefs on others, pursue economic or territorial advantages, or strive for independence. We will particularly examine the factors of economic gain and territorial expansion, preemptive military actions, religious convictions, internal strife, revolutionary movements, and.

Economic Gain and Territorial Expansion

Historically, the quest for territory and resources has stood out as one of the primary ancillary causes behind conflicts. The acquisition of land and the accompanying resources directly contribute to a state's power, subsequently bolstering the security of the invading state. This sentiment is encapsulated in the Athenians' message to the Melians as recorded in Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War," where they assert, besides extending our empire we should gain in security by your subjection, highlighting the belief that territorial expansion and the subjugation of other groups are perceived as means to enhance security (Thucydides, 1810, p. 389).

A contemporary illustration of this would be Russia, which has engaged in unlawful annexations in both Ukraine and Georgia, primarily aiming to expand its territory. In relation to this instance, Waltz comments:

An explanation may be made in terms of geographic or economic deprecations or in terms of deprivations too vaguely defined to be labeled at all. Thus a nation may argue that it has not attained it “natural” frontiers, that such frontiers are necessary to its security, that war to extend the state to its deserved compass is justified or even necessary (Waltz, 2001, pg. 91).

Preemptive Military Actions

A scenario that often accelerates conflict prematurely involves the concept of preemptive warfare. Even if a state aims to maintain peace, it might find itself compelled to contemplate engaging in a preventive war. Faced with the possibility that failure to strike at an opportune moment might lead to being targeted later when the advantage shifts to the opposing side (Waltz, 2001, p. 21). Sun Tzu once articulated, he will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. He will win who has the military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign" (Tzu, 1910, pg. 68). Military strategists understand the pivotal importance of seizing the initiative and sustaining momentum and boldness in offensive actions, often translating such strategies to the state level, where, in the pursuit of security, a state opts for preemptive strikes.

Internal Strife

Marxists, drawing insights from Carl Marx's manifesto, frequently emphasize internal conflicts such as civil wars as catalysts for state violence. While their analyses primarily center on class tensions, it is not uncommon for states to grapple with ideological disparities within their territorial boundaries, prompting efforts to establish dominance or incite revolutions through force. The United States' own Revolutionary War serves as a prominent example, seeking independence from Great Britain on the grounds of "no taxation without representation." For the United States to forge its democracy and institute a stable society aligned with its principles, escalating conflict to the point of war was necessary to attain independence.

Even post a successful revolution or resolution of civil strife, the remnants of ideologies may persist, lying dormant within society and potentially leading to future conflicts. Clausewitz noted, even the ultimate outcome of an entire War may not always be perceived as absolute. The defeated state often perceives it merely as a temporary setback, reparable in the future (Clausewitz et al, 2008, pg. 20).

Religious Convictions

Throughout history, war has been instrumental in determining the dominance of particular ideologies. Some of the most intense conflicts have been rooted in religious ideologies. The belief in the promise of a specific afterlife has motivated various groups to escalate and validate conflicts in the pursuit of their ideologies for millennia. The ultimate objective of many of these groups is to establish a secure and stable society that adheres to their chosen religion. Similar to governance, they seek security to ensure stability. The medieval crusades from the 10th to the 12th centuries represent a widely recognized instance of religious conflict. Nonetheless, even in contemporary times, religious conflicts persist worldwide.

An evident example of religiously driven conflict lies in the enduring presence of Islamic extremism in the Middle East, propagated by violent non-state actors. Numerous radical Muslims aspire to establish a society centered on a purified form of Islam, striving to return to the Islam practiced and preached by Mohammed in the early 7th century, seeking to recapture the divine blessings enjoyed by early believers (Suarez, 2013, pg. 14). In the present era, these extremists repeatedly demonstrate their readiness to resort to violence in pursuit of this religious objective.

The Effects of War

The effects of war are multifaceted and can profoundly impact various aspects of society, including human lives, economies, infrastructure, and cultures. Here is an analysis of some significant effects of war along with concrete examples:

1)      Loss of Lives and Injuries: War leads to significant casualties and injuries among civilians and military personnel. The loss of life and physical harm are among the most devastating consequences. For instance, the Syrian Civil War, ongoing since 2011, has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of people being injured or displaced (UNHCR, 2021). The conflict between Israel and Palestine has led to significant human suffering. According to various reports, including those from Amnesty International ("Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories"), the conflict has resulted in the loss of thousands of lives, including civilians, children, and combatants, causing trauma and emotional distress among the affected populations. The constant threat of violence, displacement, and loss of livelihoods has had long-lasting psychological effects on individuals and communities on both sides.

2)      Destruction of Infrastructure: Wars often result in the destruction of critical infrastructure, including homes, hospitals, schools, and transportation systems. The bombing campaigns during World War II led to the extensive destruction of cities like Dresden, Germany, and Tokyo, Japan, causing immense damage to buildings and infrastructure.

3)      Displacement and Refugees: Wars force people to flee their homes, leading to mass displacement and creating refugee crises. The ongoing conflict in Afghanistan has resulted in millions of Afghans seeking refuge in neighboring countries and beyond, contributing to one of the world's largest refugee populations (UNHCR, 2021).

4)      Economic Consequences: Wars have significant economic repercussions, causing disruptions to trade, commerce, and industries. They drain government resources, diverting funds from social welfare and development projects. The Gulf War in 1990-1991 had a severe impact on Iraq's economy due to sanctions and destruction of infrastructure (World Bank, n.d.).

5)      Psychological and Social Impact: War leaves a lasting impact on the mental health of individuals and communities. PTSD, depression, anxiety, and trauma are widespread among war survivors. For example, the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 resulted in long-term psychological scars among survivors, leading to widespread trauma and psychological issues (WHO, 2021).

6)      Cultural and Social Disruption: Wars can disrupt cultural heritage, erasing historical sites, artifacts, and traditions. The destruction of ancient monuments and artifacts during the Syrian Civil War, such as the ancient city of Palmyra, has resulted in the loss of invaluable cultural heritage (UNESCO, 2021).

 

The Unnecessary War (Winston Churchill: were World War I and II necessary and inevitable?) is there an alternative to war today?

In this extensive and thought-provoking historical account, Patrick Buchanan argues that had it not been for the errors made by British statesmen, particularly Winston Churchill, the devastating events of two world wars and the Holocaust could have been averted, and the downfall of the British Empire might not have occurred. The grim era of oppressive Communist rule, causing immense suffering to millions for half a century, might have been prevented, allowing Europe to maintain its central role in global affairs for generations to come.

World War I

Regarding World War I, Buchanan contends that Britain initially had no conflict with Germany before 1914. However, the considerable expansion of the Imperial German Navy, led by Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz, was perceived as a "threat to Britain." Consequently, the British redirected the majority of their Royal Navy to European waters and formed alliances with Russia and France. Buchanan argues that this strategic shift, tying England closely to Europe, was a disastrous policy that ultimately led Britain to be entangled in the war.

On another note, Buchanan attributes a significant portion of the deteriorating Anglo-German relations to the "Germanophobia" and the fervent pursuit of the Entente Cordiale with France by British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey. When evaluating the responsibility for the unfolding events, Buchanan suggests that Britain could have easily halted the Anglo-German naval arms race in 1912 by committing to neutrality in a conflict between Germany and France.

Buchanan challenges the notion of "Prussian militarism" as an anti-German fabrication by certain British statesmen. According to him, Germany's historical record supports the idea that it was the least militaristic among the European Powers. Buchanan emphasizes that until 1914, German Kaiser Wilhelm II had not engaged in any war, contrasting this with Winston Churchill's involvement in three wars, stating that Churchill had more firsthand war experience than almost any soldier in the German army.

 

In terms of the outbreak of war in 1914, Buchanan contends that Wilhelm was eager to avoid conflict and accepts the German assertion that Russian mobilization on July 31 forced Germany into war. He accuses Churchill and Grey of committing Britain to enter the war by making promises to defend France without the knowledge of the Cabinet or Parliament.

Buchanan criticizes the British "hunger blockade" of Germany during World War I as "criminal" and aligns with the argument presented by British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes, in his 1919 work "The Economic Consequences of the Peace," asserted that the reparations imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles were "impossible" to fulfill.

World War II

Buchanan puts forth the hypothesis that the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles played a pivotal role in triggering World War II. He contends that the treaty, perceived as unjust towards Germany, justified German attempts to revise it, characterizing these efforts as both moral and just. The aftermath of the Treaty's imposition, according to Buchanan, fueled German nationalism, paving the way for the rise of Adolf Hitler. In Buchanan's perspective, Britain, France, Italy, and Czechoslovakia indirectly contributed to Hitler's ascent to power in 1933.

According to Buchanan, leaders in Weimar-era Germany, such as Gustav Stresemann, Heinrich Brüning, and Friedrich Ebert, were responsible statesmen working to revise Versailles without threatening European peace. However, their efforts were hampered by the reluctance of Britain and France to cooperate. Buchanan contends that Hitler's foreign policy, when he assumed power in 1933, was more moderate than the war aims outlined by German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg in the Septemberprogramm during World War I. Buchanan argues that Hitler's territorial aspirations were focused on Eastern Europe and did not extend to Western Europe and Africa.

Buchanan suggests that Hitler perceived the Franco-Soviet Pact as a threat, arguing that it violated the Locarno Treaties, and used this claim as a diplomatic weapon against which the French and British had no effective response. According to Buchanan, Hitler's demands on Poland in 1938 and 1939 were an attempt to build an anti-Soviet German-Polish alliance. He argues that Hitler wanted Poland as an ally, not an enemy.

 

Buchanan agrees with British historian E. H. Carr's view that the use of force to maintain the status quo might be morally more culpable than altering it. He maintains that Hitler did not desire a war with Britain and criticizes Britain's decision to declare war in 1939.

Buchanan criticizes the Morgenthau Plan of 1944 as a genocidal proposal promoted by Henry Morgenthau and his deputy, Soviet agent Harry Dexter White, to ensure Soviet dominance in Europe. He accuses Churchill of accepting this plan amorally.

Regarding the Holocaust, Buchanan argues that its scale would not have reached the same magnitude without Hitler's invasion of Poland and the Soviet Union. He suggests that if Churchill had accepted Hitler's peace offer in 1940, the severity of the Holocaust might have been significantly reduced.

Buchanan endorses the concept of Western betrayal, accusing Churchill and Roosevelt of handing over Eastern Europe to the Soviet Union at the Tehran Conference and the Yalta Conference. He asserts that the United States should have stayed out of World War II, blaming Churchill for pressuring the British Cabinet in 1921 to end its alliance with Japan, ultimately leading to Japan aligning with the Axis and attacking Pearl Harbor.

In his conclusion, Buchanan critiques former President George W. Bush, drawing parallels between Churchill's involvement in unnecessary wars and Bush's actions in Iraq. Buchanan contends that Bush, influenced by Churchill's neoconservative foreign policy, led the United States into ruin by making commitments to numerous nations without vital interests, reminiscent of Churchill's wartime decisions.

Alternatives to war

Is there an alternative to war today?

Yes, there are several alternatives to war in contemporary international relations. These alternatives focus on diplomacy, conflict resolution, and collaboration to address disputes and conflicts. Here are some extensive explanations with concrete examples:

 

1.      Diplomacy and Negotiation

Diplomacy involves the use of dialogue, negotiations, and communication to resolve conflicts between nations without resorting to armed conflict. Skilled diplomats work to find common ground, build understanding, and reach agreements. For instance, the Iran Nuclear Deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) in 2015 is an example of successful diplomacy. Through negotiations involving multiple countries, including the United States, Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

2.      International Mediation and Conflict Resolution

This involves impartial third parties or international organizations facilitating discussions between conflicting parties to find mutually acceptable solutions. Example is The Oslo Accords in the 1990s, mediated by Norway, brought Israelis and Palestinians to the negotiating table, resulting in agreements aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

3.      International Organizations and Treaties

International bodies and treaties provide frameworks for cooperation and conflict resolution, promoting adherence to established norms and rules. The United Nations (UN) plays a crucial role in conflict prevention and resolution. UN peacekeeping missions, such as those in Cyprus and Lebanon, aim to maintain peace and stability.

4.      Economic Sanctions

Imposing economic sanctions can be a way to influence a nation's behavior without resorting to military action. Sanctions can be designed to pressure governments to change policies or comply with international norms. For instance, the sanctions imposed on South Africa during the apartheid era contributed to the dismantling of the discriminatory system by putting economic pressure on the government.

5.      Crisis Prevention and Early Warning Systems

Utilizing intelligence, monitoring, and analysis to identify potential conflicts early on, allowing for preventive measures to be taken.  The European Union's Conflict Early Warning System (EWS)  for instance, monitors regions of potential concern, providing policymakers with information to address issues before they escalate into armed conflicts.

 

6.      Cultural Exchange and Public Diplomacy

Promoting mutual understanding and cultural exchange to build positive relationships and reduce misunderstandings. Programs like the Fulbright Scholar Program foster cultural exchange by sending scholars and students between countries, fostering cross-cultural understanding and collaboration.

7.      Technology for Conflict Prevention

The use of technology for surveillance and early warning systems as well as, communication to prevent conflicts from escalating. The use of satellite imagery and social media analysis can provide real-time information about potential conflict zones, helping international actors respond proactively.

8.      International Law and Human Rights Advocacy

Emphasizing the importance of international law and human rights standards to address grievances and hold nations accountable for their actions. The International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes individuals for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, providing a legal avenue for addressing atrocities.

In today's interconnected world, a combination of these alternatives is often employed to address conflicts and promote peace, emphasizing the importance of dialogue, cooperation, and international collaboration.

 

 

References

Amnesty International. (2021). Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories. Retrieved from             https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-   palestinian-territories/

Baylis, J., Owens, P., Smith, S. (2017). The globalization of world politics: An        introduction       to international relations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 7th       edition. Print.

Buchanan, Patrick 'Pat' Joseph (May 27, 2008), Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War:         How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, New York:            Crown, ISBN 978-0-307-40515-9.

Clausewitz, Carl von. 1997. On War. Translated by J. J. Graham. Wordsworth Classics of             World Literature. Ware, England: Wordsworth Editions.

Durkheim, Emile 1933 The Division of Labor in Society. (1893) George Simpson, trans. New       York: Macmillan.

Hugo Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Libre Tres, trans. Francis W. Kelsey (London: Wildy &       Sons Ltd, 1964), 33; hereafter referred to as Grotius.

John M. K. The Economic Consequences of the Peace. (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe. 1920.     Pp. 298.)

Lieber, Dr. Francis. General Orders Number 100: Instructions for the Government of the Armies for the United States in the Field. Washington, DC: Adjutant General’s Office, 1863.

Marx, K., Engels, F., & Likes, S. (2012). The communist manifesto (Rethinking the western           tradition) (J Isaac, Ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press. eBook.

Maslow, A. H., (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.             doi:10.1037/h0054346.

Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Tavistock, London.

Mills, C.W. (1959) The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press, New York.

Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics among nations. The struggle for power and peace. New York, Knopf.

Paret, Peter. Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age. Princeton, NJ:       Princeton University Press, 1986.

Suarez-Murias, A. (2013). "Jihad is the way and death for the sake of allah is our highest   aspiration": A narrative analysis of sayyid qutb's milestones. Retrieved from https://wakespace.lib.wfu.edu/handle/10339/38576.

Thucydides. 1963. History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by Rex Warner. Penguin             Classics. London, England: Penguin Classics.

Tzu, S., Evans, M., & Giles, L. (2017). The art of war. (Knicker bocker classics). Laguna Hills:     Race Point Publishing.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2021). Syrian      Cultural Heritage. Retrieved from https://whc.unesco.org/en/syrianculturalheritage/

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). (2021). Global Trends: Forced        Displacement in 2020. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/globaltrends2020/

Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Waltz, Kenneth. (2001). Man, the state, and war: A theoretical analysis. New York: Columbia      University Press. eBook.

Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations. New      York: Harper Collins, 1977.

World Bank. (n.d.). The Economic and Social Impact of the Gulf War. Retrieved from             https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29379

World Health Organization (WHO). (2021). Mental Health Consequences of Disasters.     Retrieved from https://www.who.int/health-topics/disasters#tab=tab_1

Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random          House.

DOWNLOAD PDF