Introduction: On 22nd June 1941, Adolf Hitler launched the largest military task in history named Operation Barbarossa where in a display of betrayal and treachery, he invaded the Soviet Union. Lasting a gruelling 6 months in unforgiving Russian weather, Barbarossa saw the Red Army defeat the Germany Nazi party in the prime of Hitler’s dominance over Europe. In a demonstration of Hitler’s overconfidence and arrogance, the Germany army failed to defeat the Soviet Union due to poor leadership and guidance, personal values getting mixed with political issues and a lack of preparation for the challenging Russian conditions. Operation Barbarossa comes under the analysis of 3 criteria’s of the Jus Ad Bellum Just War theory including Proper Authority …show more content…
and Public Declaration, Just Cause/Right Intention and Probability of Success. 1st paragraph The first criteria of the Jus Ad Bellum which was not demonstrated in Operation Barbarossa is ‘the war must not be fought to pursue a national interest but to re-establish a just peace’. The main motivation of Hitler’s attack was not to re-establish peace with the Soviet Union but to gain extremely valuable resources to further increase his domination and supremacy over Europe. In regards to natural resources throughout both World War I and II, the Soviet Union was the wealthiest country in the world with a vast variety of different mineral supplies including iron ore, tin, nickel and copper which enticed and interested Hitler greatly. Although there were economical reasons for Operation Barbarossa, Hitler made no secret of his deep hatred towards communism and was another motive for his attack on Stalin and the Soviet Union. When asked about the leader and dictator of the Soviet Union Josef Stalin, Hitler said “Stalin is one of the most extraordinary figures in world history. He began as a small clerk, and he has never stopped being a clerk.” This comment encompasses Hitler’s view of Stalin himself and his political beliefs. Barbarossa was also an opportunity for Hitler to acquire for Germany the Lebensraum, when translated into English means ‘living space’. He believed that the Soviet Union was the birthright of the German people. 2nd Paragraph Operation Barbarossa cannot be exemplified as meeting the criteria for Probability of Success. This states that the war must have a reasonable chance of success, and show that human life and economic resources should not be wasted on war efforts that are certain to fall. Before ordering for Operation Barbarossa to commence, Hitler said to General Alfred Jodi “we have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down” referring to the Soviet Union government and also the Red Army. This comment also demonstrates Hitler’s arrogance in regards to the attack which he believed would be a complete walk in the park. Due to Hitler and his general’s underestimation of the capability and determination of the Red Army, German Nazi battle tacticians repeatedly called for the German army to retreat to allow for more preparation time however Hitler remained stubborn and refused with the belief that the Soviet Union would be conquered within a matter of time. Hitler had originally planned for Operation Barbarossa to be completed within the warm summer months in Russia due to the German army not use to freezing temperatures however as the invasion continued to drag on into the winter months, Hitler’s men lacked the necessary resources in order to sustain a successful battle which included the clothing that wasn’t resistant to the freezing winter temperatures and a lack of food and water due to the Soviet troops’ ‘Scorched Earth Policy’ where they strategically burnt the farmers crops in an attempt to cut off the supply of food to the German army. With temperatures at the time dropping to below - 30 degrees celsius, over 775,000 German soldiers died as a result of hypothermia or starvation due to a limited supply of food. 3rd Paragraph The final criteria in Jus Ad Bellum disregarded in Operation Barbarossa is the Proper authority and public declaration.
This references that the war must be properly declared by the official government of the state. On August 23rd 1939, Stalin proposed to Hitler and the Nazi party a non-aggression pact which was seen to be a way of preventing a war between both Germany and the Soviet Union however Stalin knew that an attack from Germany was inevitable and that this pact was only there to buy time for Russia and the Red Army. Even with the intelligence from numerous Russian spies, Josef Stalin refused to believe the rumours that were circulating that Hitler was going to invade just over two years after the German-Soviet Union Non-aggression pact was signed. Unannounced, in a display of blatant treachery, Hitler launched Operation Barbarossa across a 930 mile front committing almost 3.6 million German soldiers. When asked at the time why Hitler wished to invade the Soviet Union, his excuse was “Czechoslovakia provided Soviet Russia with landing fields for aircrafts, thereby increasing the threat against Germany”. Hitler’s propaganda was an attempt of convincing the rest of the world that there was a valid reason for the invasion of the Soviet Union however no one was fooled by Hitler’s deceitful lies.
Conclusion:
Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was nothing more than an immoral, unethical attack that was fuelled by his obsession of domination over Europe. When examined closely, Operation Barbarossa is a prime example of a non-just war as it disregards and goes against 3 of the Jus Ad Bellum just war criteria. When looked at in the context of World War II, Operation Barbarossa was not necessary and was a non-just war considering the number of casualties as well as the reasoning behind the German attack on its supposed ally the Soviet
Union.
Clausewitz emphasizes that “war is a branch of political activity, that it is in no sense autonomous” (Clausewitz, 605). This principle is especially applicable to the post-war period of World War II. The political struggle between the ideologies of democracy and communism would entail global focus for the next 50 years, and the events that brought about the defeat of Germany shaped the landscape of this political struggle.
As the Soviet Union approaches Berlin from the East, the allied forces invade from the west. Hitler’s German war-machine was crumbling. The United States had to make an enormous decision. Should they attack the Red Army of the Soviet Union? Should they keep the increasingly shaky alliance with the Russians and end the war in Europe? America chose to remain allies, resulting in a decision that affected the world for the next 46 years. World War 2 had concluded but now there was a new enemy, the Soviet Communist.
Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...
World War II played host to some of the most gruesome and largest mass killings in history. From the start of the war in 1939 until the end of the war in 1945 there were three mass killings, by three big countries on those who they thought were lesser peoples. The rape of Nanking, which was carried out by the Japanese, resulted in the deaths of 150,000 to 200,000 Chinese civilians and POW. A more well-known event was of the Germans and the Holocaust. Hitler and the Nazi regime persecuted and killed over 500,000 Jews. This last country may come as a surprise, but there is no way that someone could leave them out of the conversation. With the dropping of the Atomic bombs the United States killed over 200,000, not including deaths by radiation, in the towns of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and ultimately placed the United States in the same group as the Japanese and the Germans. What are the alternatives other than dropping the two A-bombs and was it right? The United States and President Truman should have weighed their opting a little bit more before deciding to drop both atomic bombs on the Islands of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In the case of dropping the atomic bombs the United States did not make the right decision. This essay will explain through logic reasoning and give detailed reasons as to why the United States did not make the right choice.
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
September 11th, 2001. An organization denoted as terrorists by the United States, Al-Qaeda, attacked the U.S on our own soil. In his “Letter to the American People”, the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, takes a defensive stance regarding the attack, giving his justifications of why the attack on the U.S was warranted and acceptable in the terms of Just War Theory, citing examples of the Right to Self-Defense and reasons why he was justified in targeting American civilians. Just War Theory is comprised of ideas of values to determine when acts of aggression are morally justified or not, and it is primarily split into two categories, Jus Ad Bellum (Justice of War) and Jus In Bello (Justice in War) (Walzer 21). In this essay, I will be arguing against Bin Laden’s claims of the justification of Al-Qaeda’s attack, using the failure of Bin Laden’s attack to meet the requirements for a just war in terms of Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello.
However, when confronted with a strict policy of appeasement, by both the French and the English, the stage was set for a second World War. Taylor constructs a powerful and effective argument by expelling certain dogmas that painted Hitler as a madman, and by evaluating historical events as a body of actions and reactions, disagreeing with the common idea that the Axis had a specific program from the start. The book begins with the conclusion of the First World War, by exploring the idea that critical mistakes made then made a second war likely, yet not inevitable. Taylor points out that although Germany was defeated on the Western front, “Russia fell out of Europe and ceased to exist, for the time being, as a Great Power. The constellation of Europe was profoundly changed—and to Germany’s advantage.”
Morality is hard to define, and nearly impossible to agree upon; however, when it comes to war, there is a single “widely accepted moral theory” that reaches beyond borders . Just war theory, a doctrine originally attributed to the Christian theologian Saint Augustine , postulates that certain circumstances can lead to the justification of war, particularly if war is used to prevent even greater atrocities from occurring in the future. In its fundamental charter, the United Nations even articulates that every state has the right to go to war in its charter. In its broadest definition, just war theory declares that war may be justifiable if the states involved have both jus ad bellum, or just cause, and jus in bello, or just conduct in war;
While some theorists assert the just war theory ignores the consequences of war, which are death and destruction, the theory includes several conditions that prohibit entering a war if its consequences are in any way undesirable. The jus ad bellum section asserts that a war must have a reasonable hope for success while achieving just cause and other significant benefits. If it does not, then the purpose of the war is wrong. Moreover, if a war does accomplish its intended benefits, it will be wrong if the destruction it creates is unwarranted, or greater than the benefits. Also, the just war theory includes a last resort condition that prohibits war if its benefits although significant could have been achieved by diplomacy or less destructive means. In order to support my claim, I will circumvent consequentialism by differentiating between the types of benefits and harms and saying only some are relevant to the assessment of a war while others are not.
On June 22nd, 1941, Nazi Germany launched the invasion of the Soviet Union, codename Operation Barbarossa, an attack that would lead to the deaths of tens of millions. Adolf Hitler sent a letter to his ally Benito Mussolini, detailing the reasoning behind his betrayal of Joseph Stalin, and cementing the Nazi state’s ideological commitment to the destruction of the Bolshevik creed. In this essay I intend to analyse the letter and interpret Adolf Hitler’s motivations in sending it, and indeed understand the wider motivations behind such a gamble as to take on the Soviet juggernaut.
Amongst military theorists and practitioners who studied war, its origin and implications, Carl von Clausewitz assumes a place among the most prominent figures. With his book On War, he demonstrated his capability to provide thorough historical analysis and conclusions of the conflicts in which he was engaged, and as a philosopher he reflected about all encompassing aspects of war. Today, Western armies conduct modern warfare in a dynamic environment composed of flexible and multiple threats in which civilians form a substantial part. Studying Clausewitz provides current military and political leadership useful insights to understand twenty-first century warfare. He explains the nature of war, provides an analytical tool to understand the chaos of warfare, and he argues for well educated and adaptable leadership capable of creative thinking. Although he died before his work was complete, his writing style was ambiguous and unclear at some moments, and current technology reduced some of his tactics obsolete, his work still arouses and inspires military and political strategists and analysts.
Oppositions to the ideology of the Holocaust being a process of improvisation exist. According to Dawidowicz (1918), the school of thought on intentionalists hold that the Final Solution was Hitler’s planned execution . The extermination was his intention and process that led to it. However, it did not show that the purpose for ultimate destruction were mere distractions. According to Hill Gruber and Dawidowicz, the Holocaust was an action plan ideologically shown in the Mein Kampf. Intentionalist Breitman, as pre-determined plan, picks on speeches such as Himmler’s where he foreshadows the clash and eventually eradicating the German Jewry .
The Allies and the Axis powers were the two sides World War 2. The main leader of the Axis was Hitler and during his time as head, he made many great victories but that was overcome by his failures and mistakes, which eventually cost him the war. Hitler’s mistakes were not small ones, but ones that changed the war, even to the extent of killing his own army. From the icy colds of the Soviet Union to declaring war against the United States of America, Hitler’s mistakes have been subtle, but slowly building up to an avalanche of defeat. If Adolf put more time into thinking; perhaps the Axis could have won the war. But this idealist could only handle so much, consequencing in his own failure.
On December 18th 1940, Hitler issued his secret directive order to ‘crush Soviet Russia in a massive campaign’ (Steiner).
The Responsibility of Hitler for World War Two In this essay I will be looking at the main causes of World War 2 and deciding whether it was all Adolf Hitler's fault that it began. I will be looking at things Hitler did, other causes and then concluding with my opinion. In some ways the war was Hitler's fault.