Peace though War
There is a thread of thought within conservative circles that peace movements are not only wimpish but actually cause wars.
Typically, in these arguments, the UN comes off as an ineffectual or corrupt body, seeking diplomatic solutions is an indication of naiveté, and anything less than all-out attack is a sign of weakness. The most frequently-cited example to bolster this point of view is WWII. Chamberlain tried for diplomatic 'appeasement' and failed (proving that diplomacy always fails) while Churchill advocated a military solution (proving that attack is always the best form of defense).
It's worth remembering, however:
1. Because diplomacy could not stop Hitler doesn't mean it never works. Cuban Missile Crisis anyone?
2. It is easy to choose the military option after someone else has already tried diplomacy and failed. We cannot know that, had Churchill been PM in 1939, he would not have acted as Chamberlain did.
3. WWII was won by one side's military defeat, this is true, but so was WWI and every war that preceded it. It is how one deals with the populations of defeated countries that largely determines how lasting the peace will be. In the case of WWII, the international community, led by the USA but strongly in concert with the UN, undertook a huge program of de-militarization, de-nazification and reconstruction that took years to accomplish. It was this that ultimately kept the peace in Germany, not the outright defeat of the army.
4. Most importantly, if one looks at the history of the 19th century and 1st half of the 20th century, what one finds is one increasingly deadly war, ending in military defeat for one side, followed by another even deadlier war. Since the creation of the UN and the EU, these widespread conflicts have decreased both in frequency and death toll and this is not a coincidence.
If the history of the human race has taught us anything it's that defeating your enemy on the battlefield does NOT guarantee a lasting peace.
Typically, in these arguments, the UN comes off as an ineffectual or corrupt body, seeking diplomatic solutions is an indication of naiveté, and anything less than all-out attack is a sign of weakness. The most frequently-cited example to bolster this point of view is WWII. Chamberlain tried for diplomatic 'appeasement' and failed (proving that diplomacy always fails) while Churchill advocated a military solution (proving that attack is always the best form of defense).
It's worth remembering, however:
1. Because diplomacy could not stop Hitler doesn't mean it never works. Cuban Missile Crisis anyone?
2. It is easy to choose the military option after someone else has already tried diplomacy and failed. We cannot know that, had Churchill been PM in 1939, he would not have acted as Chamberlain did.
3. WWII was won by one side's military defeat, this is true, but so was WWI and every war that preceded it. It is how one deals with the populations of defeated countries that largely determines how lasting the peace will be. In the case of WWII, the international community, led by the USA but strongly in concert with the UN, undertook a huge program of de-militarization, de-nazification and reconstruction that took years to accomplish. It was this that ultimately kept the peace in Germany, not the outright defeat of the army.
4. Most importantly, if one looks at the history of the 19th century and 1st half of the 20th century, what one finds is one increasingly deadly war, ending in military defeat for one side, followed by another even deadlier war. Since the creation of the UN and the EU, these widespread conflicts have decreased both in frequency and death toll and this is not a coincidence.
If the history of the human race has taught us anything it's that defeating your enemy on the battlefield does NOT guarantee a lasting peace.
posted by Sparx at 14:25
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home