Introduction: On 22nd June 1941, Adolf Hitler launched the largest military task in history named Operation Barbarossa where in a display of betrayal and treachery, he invaded the Soviet Union. Lasting a gruelling 6 months in unforgiving Russian weather, Barbarossa saw the Red Army defeat the Germany Nazi party in the prime of Hitler’s dominance over Europe. In a demonstration of Hitler’s overconfidence and arrogance, the Germany army failed to defeat the Soviet Union due to poor leadership and guidance, personal values getting mixed with political issues and a lack of preparation for the challenging Russian conditions. Operation Barbarossa comes under the analysis of 3 criteria’s of the Jus Ad Bellum Just War theory including Proper Authority …show more content…
This references that the war must be properly declared by the official government of the state. On August 23rd 1939, Stalin proposed to Hitler and the Nazi party a non-aggression pact which was seen to be a way of preventing a war between both Germany and the Soviet Union however Stalin knew that an attack from Germany was inevitable and that this pact was only there to buy time for Russia and the Red Army. Even with the intelligence from numerous Russian spies, Josef Stalin refused to believe the rumours that were circulating that Hitler was going to invade just over two years after the German-Soviet Union Non-aggression pact was signed. Unannounced, in a display of blatant treachery, Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa across a 930 mile front committing almost 3.6 million German soldiers. When asked at the time why Hitler wished to invade the Soviet Union, his excuse was “Czechoslovakia provided Soviet Russia with landing fields for aircrafts, thereby increasing the threat against Germany”. Hitler’s propaganda was an attempt of convincing the rest of the world that there was a valid reason for the invasion of the Soviet Union however no one was fooled by Hitler’s deceitful lies.
Conclusion:
Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was nothing more than an immoral, unethical attack that was fuelled by his obsession of domination over Europe. When examined closely, Operation Barbarossa is a prime example of a non-just war as it disregards and goes against 3 of the Jus Ad Bellum just war criteria. When looked at in the context of World War II, Operation Barbarossa was not necessary and was a non-just war considering the number of casualties as well as the reasoning behind the German attack on its supposed ally the Soviet
Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...
World War II played host to some of the most gruesome and largest mass killings in history. From the start of the war in 1939 until the end of the war in 1945 there were three mass killings, by three big countries on those who they thought were lesser peoples. The rape of Nanking, which was carried out by the Japanese, resulted in the deaths of 150,000 to 200,000 Chinese civilians and POW. A more well-known event was of the Germans and the Holocaust. Hitler and the Nazi regime persecuted and killed over 500,000 Jews. This last country may come as a surprise, but there is no way that someone could leave them out of the conversation. With the dropping of the Atomic bombs the United States killed over 200,000, not including deaths by radiation, in the towns of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and ultimately placed the United States in the same group as the Japanese and the Germans. What are the alternatives other than dropping the two A-bombs and was it right? The United States and President Truman should have weighed their opting a little bit more before deciding to drop both atomic bombs on the Islands of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In the case of dropping the atomic bombs the United States did not make the right decision. This essay will explain through logic reasoning and give detailed reasons as to why the United States did not make the right choice.
It is the inquisitive nature of man that is primary driving force behind the Five W’s: Who, What, When, Where and Why. Though these are all meaningful pursuits in their own right, it is the purpose of this piece to shed light on the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union’s purpose, as well as the most likely causes for its manifestation. Also in question, but not out of the scope of discussion, is whether or not non-aggression pacts truly work to preserve peace, or whether they are unintentionally one of the primary fuel sources that combust to cause war amongst the nations involved. The realist holds the key to this argument. The realist perspective sits alone as being the most concise angle from which to view the events transpired. However, without understanding a bulk of the history, a moderately concise answer cannot be delivered to the reader.
September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
However, when confronted with a strict policy of appeasement, by both the French and the English, the stage was set for a second World War. Taylor constructs a powerful and effective argument by expelling certain dogmas that painted Hitler as a madman, and by evaluating historical events as a body of actions and reactions, disagreeing with the common idea that the Axis had a specific program from the start. The book begins with the conclusion of the First World War, by exploring the idea that critical mistakes made then made a second war likely, yet not inevitable. Taylor points out that although Germany was defeated on the Western front, “Russia fell out of Europe and ceased to exist, for the time being, as a Great Power. The constellation of Europe was profoundly changed—and to Germany’s advantage.”
Morality is hard to define, and nearly impossible to agree upon; however, when it comes to war, there is a single “widely accepted moral theory” that reaches beyond borders . Just war theory, a doctrine originally attributed to the Christian theologian Saint Augustine , postulates that certain circumstances can lead to the justification of war, particularly if war is used to prevent even greater atrocities from occurring in the future. In its fundamental charter, the United Nations even articulates that every state has the right to go to war in its charter. In its broadest definition, just war theory declares that war may be justifiable if the states involved have both jus ad bellum, or just cause, and jus in bello, or just conduct in war;
While some theorists assert the just war theory ignores the consequences of war, which are death and destruction, the theory includes several conditions that prohibit entering a war if its consequences are in any way undesirable. The jus ad bellum section asserts that a war must have a reasonable hope for success while achieving just cause and other significant benefits. If it does not, then the purpose of the war is wrong. Moreover, if a war does accomplish its intended benefits, it will be wrong if the destruction it creates is unwarranted, or greater than the benefits. Also, the just war theory includes a last resort condition that prohibits war if its benefits although significant could have been achieved by diplomacy or less destructive means. In order to support my claim, I will circumvent consequentialism by differentiating between the types of benefits and harms and saying only some are relevant to the assessment of a war while others are not.
... hand, the principle is still very useful and is referred to in global political and social debate. It is noted that Richard Falk, critic of western wars argues that the just war theory ‘is a vital source of modern international law governing the use of force and it focuses attention on the causes, means and ends of war’ (Shaw, 2005, p.133). It can be acknowledged, that the morality of war still remains urgently central to political argument around the world. In recent years, the Just war theory has seen to respond to the main challenges surrounding the establishment of war in Iraq in 2003. It can be assessed the war in Iraq has distorted into a stimulating theory positioning the existence of Weapons of mass destruction.Therefore, this dissertation will elaborate on the theories that are challenged by Iraq war in relation to the use of weapons of mass destruction.
Amongst military theorists and practitioners who studied war, its origin and implications, Carl von Clausewitz assumes a place among the most prominent figures. With his book On War, he demonstrated his capability to provide thorough historical analysis and conclusions of the conflicts in which he was engaged, and as a philosopher he reflected about all encompassing aspects of war. Today, Western armies conduct modern warfare in a dynamic environment composed of flexible and multiple threats in which civilians form a substantial part. Studying Clausewitz provides current military and political leadership useful insights to understand twenty-first century warfare. He explains the nature of war, provides an analytical tool to understand the chaos of warfare, and he argues for well educated and adaptable leadership capable of creative thinking. Although he died before his work was complete, his writing style was ambiguous and unclear at some moments, and current technology reduced some of his tactics obsolete, his work still arouses and inspires military and political strategists and analysts.
On December 18th 1940, Hitler issued his secret directive order to ‘crush Soviet Russia in a massive campaign’ (Steiner).
On the 22nd June 1941, German forces invaded the Soviet Union under Directive 21. Under the codename “Operation Barbarossa”, it was recorded as the largest military operation ever seen in history as it involved more than 3 million Axis soldiers and 3,500 armoured vehicles. Throughout the war Operation Barbarossa was a conflict that demoralised the Germans and significantly contributed to the Allied victory. Catalysts for the Event: The invasion of Russia came as no surprise to the Soviets as Hitler made it evident on multiple occasions that he would invade the country.
The Allies and the Axis powers were the two sides World War 2. The main leader of the Axis was Hitler and during his time as head, he made many great victories but that was overcome by his failures and mistakes, which eventually cost him the war. Hitler’s mistakes were not small ones, but ones that changed the war, even to the extent of killing his own army. From the icy colds of the Soviet Union to declaring war against the United States of America, Hitler’s mistakes have been subtle, but slowly building up to an avalanche of defeat. If Adolf put more time into thinking; perhaps the Axis could have won the war. But this idealist could only handle so much, consequencing in his own failure.
Oppositions to the ideology of the Holocaust being a process of improvisation exist. According to Dawidowicz (1918), the school of thought on intentionalists hold that the Final Solution was Hitler’s planned execution . The extermination was his intention and process that led to it. However, it did not show that the purpose for ultimate destruction were mere distractions. According to Hill Gruber and Dawidowicz, the Holocaust was an action plan ideologically shown in the Mein Kampf. Intentionalist Breitman, as pre-determined plan, picks on speeches such as Himmler’s where he foreshadows the clash and eventually eradicating the German Jewry .
Hitler’s intention for this letter was to explain to Mussolini the reason for the attack; the question must be asked however, why did he send it the night before? One could assume that as both Germany and Italy established themselves as the ‘axis’ powers during the signing of the tripartite pact in 1940, Hitler felt morally obliged to inform Mussolini. As they both shared the common enemy it could be interpreted that he used this letter to give reason for his actions. It has been accounted by Leach that Hitler had written letters to all axis powers. The personalized form of this letter suggests he may have altered the information in each letter, or out of respect for each axis he wrote to them personally. What is evident from this letter though, is that Mussolini had no idea about Germany’s plans for the Soviet Union, and was not consulted in the preparation. It can be evaluated that “Hitler still looked to the Axis alliance to cover his rear by threatening the British in the Mediterranean and Far East and by discouraging the United States” but he had no provision “made in German planning for the active participation of either Italy or Japan in the war a...