Preview

Pacifism Durring World War Ii

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
980 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Pacifism Durring World War Ii
Pacifism during World War II
During the World War II battle some people believed that pacifism was the answer toward stopping it. George Orwell, one of the most important controversial writers during the twentieth century, was stunned and enraged at the people who believed pacifism would help end the war. How can someone expect to win by being pacifist when the enemy cannot be reasoned with? Orwell’s passionate antifascism during War World II led him into conflict with the liberal pacifist movement. This led him to attack back against active pacifist with his writings in the “London Letter”, a column in the American magazine Partisan Review .This addressed how pacifism during a war does nothing to stop the enemy but instead gives them the upper hand. Orwell’s assertion that pacifism during World War II aids the enemy is correct.
For example, any talk of pacifism aids the enemy by encouraging them. How does pacifism encourage the enemy, by letting them do as they pleased with no consequences? Evil people like Adolf Hitler would be encouraged to overtake nations. If we followed the pacifist way of thinking many evil people roaming earth would be able to do harm to others with no limitations. That is why Orwell believes that war is necessary in order to overcome evil. George Orwell states “failure to fight enemies of this kind would eventually cause more suffering and misery than the bloodies war” (282). If we don’t go to war in order to defeat evil people there will be greater deaths and suffering then any war can do. War might seem evil and inhumane but might is the only answer to defeat evil people like Hitler.
In addition, pacifism during a war lowers morale. How can one expect to win a war if we do not fight back and try to end it? The only way people can have faith and confidence in defeating the enemy is if they know we will do what it takes to defeat it. George Orwell addresses how ignorant it is to be pacifism during a war that causes many

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    The essays by Ambrose, Broyles, Hedges, Kudo, and Styron collectively discuss War in varying contexts, highlighting the effects both before and after war. Some articles intersect on the supporting the idea of another, while others clearly hold opposing views.…

    • 585 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Through Erich Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front the reader learns that war is not all combat and wounded men. It is brainwashing soldiers, forcing them to forget their homes and families. The war suffocates innocent people simply trying to serve their country, and turns them into living corpses.…

    • 666 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    From the Trojan horse to the Atomic Bomb, strategies and motivations during warfare have come under close scrutiny from historians and observers alike. The British strategy of “area bombing” during the Second World War is one of such controversies with differing viewpoints. Historians such as Denis Richards, author of The Hardest Victory, take the stance that “area bombing” was a necessary strategy to help the war effort while other historians such as Max Hastings, author of Bomber Command, see this strategy as an atrocity toward humanity. In war, the overall motivation of a strategy must be taken into consideration when determining whether or not an ethical boundary has been crossed. Did the British cross a moral boundary in their bombing campaigns between…

    • 3682 Words
    • 15 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    When Gene did not enlist, Brinker held the trial in an attempt to finally deal with Gene…

    • 526 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The Just war theory maintains that war may be justified if fought only in certain circumstances, and only if certain restrictions are applied to the way in which war is fought. The theory that was first propounded by St Augustine of Hippo and St Ambrose of Milan ( 4th and 5th centuries AD) attempts to clarify two fundamental questions: ‘when is it right to fight?’ and ‘How should war be fought?’. Whereas Pacifists are people mainly Christians who reject the use of violence and the deliberate killing of civilians but claims that peace is intrinsically good and ought to be upheld either as a duty and that war can never be justifiable. However, Realists agree that, due to the nature of humans, force is a necessary action to be used to maintain a just and ordered society. Therefore, since the Second World War, people have turned their attention to Just War again establishing rules that can serve as guidelines to a just war- the Hague and Geneva conventions.…

    • 1943 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Have you ever asked yourself what you would do in a time of conflict? Depending on the person one may react differently in a time of conflict, this was shown through the different families during World War II. Many people reacted differently during World War II. Some ways were positive while others were negative. Three Different responses to conflict during World War II include, concealment, physical resistance, and spiritual resistance.…

    • 677 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    John F. Kennedy once stated “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. In other words, if we can’t resolve our problems peacefully, then violent revolution is bound to happen. This is true because in life when people cannot get what they want peacefully, they turn to violence. The pieces of literature which prove the quote true are the book; Animal Farm written by George Orwell, and the song; “The International” written by Eugene Pottier. Animal Farm relates to this lens because the animals have a revolution which turns out to be entirely violent, and not at all peaceful. “The International” relates to the lens because it is about the servants coming together to fight for their freedom instead of peacefully working towards it.…

    • 660 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In What would you do?, Yoder combines outsider arguments and stories about nonviolence in order to strengthen his argument defending pacifism. In Gladys Aylward's story, You Say You Have the Living God Inside You, she offers a moving account of her time in China, and tells a story from when she was a missionary woman. Aylward explains her immediate fear to get involved in a prison riot, but she knew that she must advocate for peace in order to maintain her claim that she had the living god within her. The juxtaposition of stories and arguments allows for the combination of theoretical advice about pacifism as well as real life examples that prove their ability to work. Pacifists do not claim that nonviolence always works, however the collection…

    • 138 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Zinn’s point of his writing in chapter 3 is that human ‘violent nature’ is usually by the up brining of the individual. The one consistent in Zinn’s writing with this chapter is: Are we supposed to blame war on human nature? Is the government the be-all-end-all when it comes to how humans react and act during war? Those are some extremely well thought out questions that Zinn brought up multiple times. There are not many ties resulting back to any psychological, physical or any other type of studies to relate on how humans become violent/aggressive in the world we live in. History is the one thing that Einstein, Freud and many other intellectual people have pointed back to the reason why some people would become hostile. Milgram experiment can really put some perspective on how it affects humans with how close they are when it comes to inflicting pain, or making a situation worse, for another individual. When those people saw wrong answers, they were supposed to hit a button to inflict an electric buzz. When the study examined when someone was put closer to the person, they were more likely to exit the experiment. If they were place further away with less conflict of interested, they were less inclined to leave the experiment. Never the less, people still were pushing the button because a person with ‘more power’ told them that they had to push that button if they were to get an answer wrong. Zinn also points out that the notion of violence in war is usually just another man following his country’s best interest. We as humans, almost always, assume that our political leaders know best. There were multiple stories in there of men that were not proud of what they did but just simply put that they were doing what they were told to do. To the people that don’t do what the government tries to ‘brainwash’ them in doing for war purposes are dismantled and looked down upon by the government. They are out casted as…

    • 655 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A lot of effort has been devoted to analyzing the protracted bloody wars of the 20th Century when mass killings were “perpetrated by and against a wide range of nations, cultures, forms of government, ethnic and religious groups” (Mingst and Snyder 2008, 368) with brazen zeal to wipe out entire races for power and control. For most disposed people of the world – the ‘bottom billion’ as Collier refers to them, unchecked power takes away the freedom of the other and replaces it with terror and the primitive fear of being controlled. It is estimated that during the 20th Century alone, between 60 million to 150 million people have died in episodes of mass killings while international and civil wars accounts for about 34 million deaths (Mingst and Snyder 2008, 368).…

    • 556 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    War is possibly the most controversial phenomenon that takes place today, and it can be traced back to the beginnings of the human race and has always been a central focus in historical studies and teachings. Some people see war as indignant, while others perceive it to be a necessity, or rather an inevitable part of human nature. There is a fine line between the two, and while war should be avoided at all costs one has little to no control over the mentality or beliefs of others. In her paper about the nature of warfare, Mead states that war is just a bad invention by humans, and individuals should strive to create a better way of solving disputes by realizing its defects, spreading anti-war propaganda, and by pointing out its “terrible cost in human suffering and social waste” (4). This argument would be greatly beneficial to society, but in dealing with World War II this logic cannot be applied. No amount of reasoning or anti-war propaganda would have even fazed the Nazis or the Japanese, for the peoples who resided in these nations did not have the privilege of free speech. Speaking out against the country, or any attempts to hamper the war effort would have possibly lead to an imminent death. That being said, Orwell argues…

    • 1355 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Throughout the early 1900s, the United States was faced with moral dilemmas regarding conflicts with other countries. The government was torn between helping others and protecting themselves, yet there were still pros and cons to every viewpoint. An example of a World War II moral dilemma is the refugee crisis, which we are also faced with today. However, in present time, we are faced with Syrian refugees rather than Jewish.…

    • 503 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Things They Carried

    • 2057 Words
    • 9 Pages

    There are many people who instead of staying in the middle, gravitate to either end of the spectrum. Some who fall on the far right believe that war is extremely necessary and disregard the negative aspects all together. Pacifists say that war understand the cons of war but fail to realize the good that can come from the…

    • 2057 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Things We Carry

    • 753 Words
    • 4 Pages

    It’s what compels you to either flee from danger or address it head on. We often reward and cherish the instinct to fight while we shame those who follow the flight instinct. This illustrated in the the book “The Things We Carry” by … In the book he states that the primary motivation for fighting in the Vietnam War for many soldiers was, they would be embarrassed not to. They feared being called cowards by their contemporaries. This is profound because of what it says violence in America. Circumstances aside, many of the characters believe pacifism is weakness and something to be ashamed of. This severe and negative connotations seem inherently wrong. Pacifism is objectively beneficial. All major religions agree that pacifism is a virtue. This fear of non-violence is abnormal but strong in our society. During World War I, a man named Evan Thomas refused to fight because he thought it was immoral. He was court martialed and prosecuted. During his prosecution, a debate about cowardice verse pacifism arose. The prosecutor is quoted as saying “The very foundation of every civilized government from the first beginning of history down to the present time has been based absolutely upon force of arms… Gentlemen, if we don’t punish these cowards who appear in this land…

    • 753 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Living by this moral principle can cause a greater harm by turning the other cheek than by using force to deminish a greater threat. There is always going to be people seeking out power or people who have different beliefs and morals because it is engraved within ourselves through generation after generation. Jan Narveson directly states a pacifists view, "His belief is not only that violence is evil but also that it is morally wrong to use force to resist, punish, or prevent violence. We are aggressive and greedy people and to change the thinking of the entire world with out the threat of force seems nearly impossible. Hypathetically, if pacifism was put into law, the use of any type of force will be breaking the law and the sentence is life in prison. Now imagine if a man breaks into a house of a young lady and rapes this lady and then pulls a gun out to shoot her. If the woman grabs the gun and shoots the man, she would also be sent to prison for life because any use of force is labelled as unacceptable. In our society today, violence is happening everyday even though we have laws in place to minimize them. Violence is not only a thing of the past but it is a thing of the future and without a proper punishment, violence will increase drastically. Narveson communicates a second version of pacifism where " one might argue that pacifism is desirable as a tactic: that as a matter of fact, some good end, such as the reduction of violence itself , is to be achieved by 'turning the other cheek'. " This again is a good theory, but if it was put into action, the consequences would be great. A human has the right to defend themselves, or help a person that is in need. In war it is the same thing but instead of one person needing help, it is a population worth of needed help. A person claiming they are a pure hearted pacifist by " turning the other cheek" does not necessarily make it the best…

    • 1929 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays

Related Topics