Is war ever the right thing to do?

Question

In Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front", it is suggested that war is never a solution, and is simply the antithesis to humanity. However, culture in the United States and elsewhere continuously glorifies war as an avenue to freedom, glory, and honor. Does the end justify the means?

Answer 1

I understand the pacifistic viewpoint. I detest the concept of war, it's barbaric and counterproductive. However, as long as humans are human, there will always be war. Let me justify this.

Remarque wrote "All Quiet on the Western Front" between World War I and World War II. Paul Baumer, the protagonist, never made it out alive. He is the metaphor for Remarque: dead on the inside.

It is important to note that Remarque fought in World War I, a war that combined strategies from the Crimean war with automatic weapons, aircraft, and the automobile. The war escalated due to a balance of power political scene that changed a Serbian/Austro-Hungarian conflict into the greatest war that Europe had ever seen to date. It was simply a WASTE of human life sparked by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. It accomplished nothing and the Treaty of Versailles did more damage by setting the stage for Hitler and World War II.

Now because World War I was so devastating and because of the European depression, Germans were desperate. So, Hitler was elected. Obviously not a great guy, but he promised to restore to Germany and to put food in their stomachs. War was inevitable due to failing economic conditions, and an imperial fascist dictator. World War II needed to be fought by the Allies to "fix things" (in short) and prevent global domination. Millions upon millions lost their lives in that war, but how many more would have if the war was never fought. More importantly, if the war was never fought, what would become of this spirit that Remarque treasured so much, the vivacity and gentle naivete of youth that he discusses. Wars must be fought when belligerent entities upset the relatively peaceful coexistence of the world.

But wars can be limited. You assert that the US "continuously glorifies war as an avenue to freedom, glory, and honor.", but the United States has done more to prevent large scale war than any other nation in the history of the world. Let me direct your attention back to the 1940's and 1950's. Because World War II did so much damage, the United States decided to implement the Marshall Plan so that the Soviet Communists would not usurp the weakened Europe like Hitler usurped the weakened Germany. Planning can preempt wars. US led modern technology also greatly limits civilian casualties (smart bombs are more precise than carpet bombing).

War and killing is justified when it prevents exponentially more killing. But I do wish mankind would quit killing altogether.

Answer 2

You need to answer this question for yourself on a case by case basis. "All Quiet on the Western Front" was written after WWI, which was, by any measure, a pointless and needlessly destructive war, so one could argue that Erich Maria Remarque was correct in his conclusion. However, would our country exist today if not for the revolution that was fought to create it? And what would it look like if a civil war that ended the practice of slavery had not been fought? Wars can be either the antithesis of humanity, or the only means to a better end. Often, they can be both. This makes this question an extremely difficult one to answer definitively. Whether any particular war is right or wrong is for each individual person to decide for themselves.

Answer 3

I'd say it's more accurate to say that war's somtimes "unavoidable" "Right" implies that it's taken lightly, or willingly. E Remarque's book was a good story, and an example of what war's like through the eyes of a soldier. I'd say it's more an example of why we should try everything BEFORE going to war. An example of the consequences, rather than an argument that war's always wrong. Like it or not, violence is in reality a very effective solution. It's a sick person or state though, that enjoys it, or uses it as their primary tool.
Personally, before "signing" up, I read books like "western front", "Johnny got his gun" (Dalton Trumball) "red badge of courage", etc because I felt an obligation to understand the morality of what I'd be doing. The one thing I learned, is that authors like these, and the more die hard pacifists are as blind in their views, as the twisted "warmongers" or hate peddlers. Above all, there IS a time when violence is the only remaining solution. The key is "only remaining".

Answer 4

Obviously Remarque was speaking theoretically, assuming that every single person on earth adopted that position. But just like Communism, a world with no War is completely impractical. There will always be a person that rises to power that wants to take over the world, or a civilization whose ideals clash so badly with another civilization that they cant stand the idea of them living. Thats life and it will never change. War is not a possibility, it is an inevitability.

Answer 5

Yes, sometimes war is a solution. The question isn't whether it is a viable solution, but rather what the purpose of the war is.

If you are truly trying to do good, to free a people who are in bondage or tortured or whatever.... then the end can justify the means.

However if you are doing it for power, money, land expansion, etc While the solution may result in what you want.... it surely isn't justifying the means.

Answer 6

Yes, In the case of WWII, absolutely the end justified the means. Almost nobody wants war. Even Hitler would have preferred that everyone just turn over the keys to the city. He was certainly prepared for it. The US tried to get Japan to surrender and there would have been an additional 100,000 American lives lost if we hadn't finally put an end to it. Most don't ask for war, but it does get inflicted on them.

Answer 7

Was is a terrible consequence of our failings in negotiating since this means we may have to give something up when we feel we should not have to. Of course when dealing with a really difficult enemy we must be able to go to war. It is just that it should not be the solution until everything else is tryed.

Answer 8

Not everyone in America glorifies war. Sadly, sometimes war is waged for the ultimate greater good of the world - even though innocents are killed.

Answer 9

War is never the right thing to do, it is only the last resort. When peace talk doesn't work out and there is nothing else that can be done, then a war will be right choice.

Answer 10

War is the enemy.

unless you're Jewish then being passive can get you exterminated.

So, apparently in some cases:

War is occasionally the only solution to being wiped out by your neighbors.

Aggression in this world is usually rewarded.