The Second World War was horrible as are all wars. People were tortured, fire-bombed, and killed on the battlefield. Surely, though, we might describe our efforts to help Britain and those fighting the Nazis in France, Scandinavia, and other places, as fighting a “just war.”
Nazi evils were blatant: killing even innocent children simply because of the religious heritage they were born with. In the beginning, though, as Hitler conquered European countries and Japan invaded China, some Americans were unconvinced that it really was “our” war. After all, we weren’t being directly victimized.
Then the German ally, Japan, bombed the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. I remember my mother recounting the family’s experiences on December 7, 1941. A neighbor, whose husband was in the U.S. army, called her and told her to turn on the radio. Listening to U.S. President Roosevelt talk of the Pearl Harbor attack as a “day that would live in infamy,” I imagine they thought about how their families would be affected. My father was too old to serve in this war. My father’s younger brother, however, would no doubt be called up to join the army. We had cousins and other relatives and friends who would be drafted. The understanding dawned on my family and other Americans that nations were prepared to fight us until we surrendered to them and they would take over our country and our government.
If any nation had viable reasons for going to war, it surely was the United States in 1941. That outlook has followed us ever since. Yet, this war wasn’t a war between two kingdoms trying to take the land of the other. We were literally fighting to survive as a nation.
Then, as the United States became a world power after the war’s end, we were blessed with leaders who sincerely wanted a world in which no wars threatened innocent people, in which no young people were robbed of adulthood. Obviously, the task has had mixed success. We have certainly fought wars, but, thankfully, as yet, no “world” war.
I wonder if our success at winning what might be called a “just” war—against Hitler and his allies—might have encouraged the idea that wars perhaps may not be such a bad thing. After all, if we hadn’t later fought in Korea, all of the country would be under a North Korean dictator, wouldn’t it? Instead, South Korea knows democratic governance. Perhaps the test is in determining if the war is “just”?
But this thinking may have led us to become horribly involved in Vietnam. We looked at it as freedom versus the tyranny of communism. However, we overlooked the desire of some Vietnamese to be free of colonialism. Communism may not have been a wise choice, but for many Vietnamese it may have been preferable to being forever governed by a colonial power.
Perhaps the phrase “it’s complicated” is particularly apt. Because of the obvious villainy of the Axis powers of World War II, we have tended to suppose that all conflicts have a clear enemy against which we must righteously battle.
Certainly, Russia’s attempts to overcome Ukraine is perhaps as near as any conflict to an evil power trying to destroy a people who want only the freedom to run their own affairs, who don’t wish a foreign dictator to control their country. In this case, they are asking only for material help, not American soldiers.
But what about conflicts in Gaza and the Middle East? Observers point to wrongdoing on both sides.
We should strive for “a just peace,” but with care that our decisions about wars and granting military assistance do not skirt unwise decisions like the ones that led to our involvement in Vietnam.
We should never think of war as a way to solve a problems. At best, it keeps selfish leaders, usually dictators, at bay until wiser answers can be found.
