In this discursive paper on war and the essential reasons for going into war, the case of the pacifist approach of Pres. Woodrow Wilson will be cited as a case in point for governments and essentially everybody in using force as a last resort. The justification of taking a pacifist stance in the discussion about war will be explored and my opinions on the subject matter will be illustrated with reference to current events and Wilson’s example.
World War 1 began in the year 1914 and ended in the year 1918. Its cause is seen to have been triggered by a chain reaction of events starting with the assassination of the archduke of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Franz Ferdinand by the Black Hand, which was a Serbian nationalist secret society. Austria and Hungary saw this as an opportunity to stamp out its authority and to cement its influence over the Balkans thus declared issued an ultimatum to Serbia and effectively declared war against Russia who was in an alliance with Serbia. European countries such as Italy, France, Britain and Germany became involved through such ties and alliances bringing the war into a full-scale global battle. This then explains the larger and substantive reason for the war, imperialism in foreign nations. For example, Britain drew in its colonies through this policy (Duffy par.8).
America during this time had adopted a policy of absolute neutrality and had taken the logical stance of not involving itself in a war of which it had no ties and was therefore senseless. This was however changed in April of 1917 due to the German provocation in the form of unrestricted submarine warfare, which threatened its shipping routes with its allies such as Britain.
In my opinion, going to war or not going to war is a choice that should be rationalized through the principle of preserving human life. Life is a basic human right that should not just be taken carelessly even if the reasons are logical as in the case of a country protecting its sovereignty. Most of the reasons for world turmoil are the scramble of scarce resources by human beings where most people tend to put greed and money over human life. The reason for this is that money is the driving force of all life’s activities, and those that do not have it are powerless and weak. Wars have begun and have been sustained by this because after all, aren’t most wars economic wars.
As seen in the events of the WW1, Pres. Wilson was forced to put aside his pacifist stance and engage in war with Germany because it had attempted to cut off the economic life blood of the US to Europe which is their trade link. Why did the US get into a war with Iraq? The reasons for the Bush’s administration doing so may have started off as humble and with no ill intent (although this is a bone of contention among conspiracy theorists); the real motive as seen by some conspiracy theorists soon became to amass the oil wealth that is abundant there. Many people have since died for a cause that could have been resolve in a more peaceful way rather than invading a sovereign country.
It is a very troubling idea to think that human beings will resort to violence to solve conflicts without first seeking peaceful means as shown by religious icons and political leaders like Jesus and Gandhi among others. It is the reason why there is suffering for the underprivileged in society as it justifies the exercise of power over another with the option of resorting to violence to achieve this purpose.
A great author gives my pacifist stance a more scholarly and witty view on peace and why people should choose to be peaceful than go to war.
According to Wendell (1), nothing noble or even an item of necessity has the capabilities of dignifying the cause of a foreign war. They are usually just senseless and cost many lives all in vain. Diplomacy always plays a bigger and more important role in conflicts and they would work if given a chance. Case in point is the subsequent formation of the League of Nations post WW1.
War most of the time results in devastating effects for the nations involved. It is the prime reason why there are so many imbalances in the world today in terms of religious conflicts and propaganda e.g. the war in Iraq.
Lastly, according to Wendell (431), “To kill in hot savagery like a beast is understandable. It is forgivable and curable. But to kill, by design, deliberately, without wrath, that is the sullen labor that perfects Hell”. It gives people the opportunity to oppress the meek and powerless in absolute sadism as seen in the war crimes committed during the 1914-1918 period like the rape of Belgium where hundreds of townspeople were massacred.
In the end it comes down to doing good by our fellow man in trying to achieve and maintain world peace.
In conclusion, the history of the First World War, its effects and the reason why the policy of pacificism and rationalizing of the possible alternatives to conflict resolution is a better choice than rushing into war are outlined in the paper above. The ideals and concepts of Berry are also explained in relation to pacifism.
In the words of Pres. Wilson: “Peace had to be peace of reconciliation , a peace without victory, for a victor’s peace would leave a sting, a resentment, a bitter memory upon which terms of peace would rest, not permanently, but only as upon quicksand”(America and World War One par.8).
Works Cited
America and World War One. History Learning Site, n.d. 2010. Web.
Duffy, Michael. The Causes of World War One. First World War site, 2009.
Wendell, Berry. The Peace of Wild Things. Web. 2010.
Wendell, Berry. “The Hurt Man.” Hudson Review 56.3 (2003): 431-438. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web.