The moral legacy of World War II-WWll

Written By Kamran Karim

WWII is a story of a bloodbath, infrastructure loses, and dilapidation. Yet, the actors of war defend in affirmative epistemic frame ignoring the magnitude of the pain. The deadliest war had devastating consequences. It became the most violent armed conflict happened between 1939 and 1945. The axis and allies of the War with totalitarian and racist characters fought with remorse. Still, has an influence on the moral and social grounds of the world in general. The fascist principles aimed more than to annex resources. This had far worse consequences of human violations, yet, victors and losers defend it on the moral and political grounds. But, War could never be won by any actor in time and space, nor could be justified on moral grounds.

The dust of the First World War was not settled and another began to spread across the Pacific Ocean, Europe, and East Asia. As former not proved to be ‘War to end all Wars’. It was an ideological war between democracy and dictatorship or vs communism. It defines moral subjects of the nation-states in given respective forms. The intensity of the war can be gauged at the yardstick, as a world in general smells cannons and dynamite even now. The climate is still caused by darker shadows. William Faulkner says, “The past is never dead and it’s even not a past”. The magnitude of the war hardly be diminished and the legacy of the war becomes a moral question, whether, the war was necessary to eliminate fascism and totalitarianism, or indecisive tactic resulted in barbarism and moral violation.

The US, European and other countries had ambivalent ideas vis-a-vis moral repercussions. The US rivals were dictators, i.e. Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. Thus former defends, as democracy is praised to be a system of equity, freedom, and justice. On the other hand, dictatorship is the notorious system of one-man rule and exploitive. In some respect, communism is disregarded in the US and Europe, for the reason that individualism serves the public interest is possible under the umbrella of capitalism. Also, communism and socialism have different claims, that, the utopian state is an ideal system for everyone.

History is always written by victors, and the US emerged as a victor. A popular claim takes root that the US and rest of Europe were there to defend democratic ideals. Despite the unprecedented results and moral violations, former argue that the dictators of Germany, Japan, and Russia were exploitive and atrocious, so, it comes to moral obligations to save vulnerable from malicious intentions of despots in the hand of allied powers. The argument softens the historical blunders, and make people defend war as a ‘just war’. The believe Fascist and Communist ideals view them via occidental lenses. It is that Non-capitalist powers are meant to eliminate them as ‘others’, usurp the diplomacy of realpolitik, and realism. The US and Europe continue to glorify heroism and condemn to a small extent. The rationale to defend a war on the moral ground is meant to control the opinions of the masses. A society is always driven by its literature to create an order, yet, the truth prevails at once, and history repeats after an interval.

In the west, the US and allies justify the war minimizing effects of the historical moral violations. The rationale to defend the war ideologically is viewed as the war was between expansionist vs defensive ideals. The expansionism is condemned generally, and defence is acclaimed particularly. The first block of allies consisted of the United Kingdom, France, and Poland were thought to defensive in nature. They are believed to democratic with affirm beliefs in freedom and self-will. On the other hand, a continuation of the War furthered more states to take part, including the US, China, and the Soviet Union. The US was not an active player at the beginning, later, Japan attacked the US naval bases at Pearl Harbor, and the US completely entered into the War. The second axis power block was formed by Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania and Japan. It is strictly argued that the axis block was aggressive to gain territorial and political gains. The Soviet Union’s power extended to far Eastern Europe and eventually to China and neighbourly countries. In nutshell, it is supposed that the communism aims to pervade and endeavours to establish an egalitarian rule. Meanwhile, the aims were to protect their people with limited warfare tactics. The nationals of Russia agrees with the notions of freedom and self-will as well, and are given in consideration of foreign policy.

Generally, Russia celebrates the war as a victory, and day of defence against oppressive forces. She disregards the labels of expansionist intentions by enemies, and deliver a message of co-existence, right to autonomy and peace. Though, the US and allies are reluctant towards former by disregarding expansionism not only on the political front but on moral justification. In like manner, people are supposed to believe that, communism is not an egalitarian system to give social security without private ownership.

The US and allies defend their role as a saviour in the war which was not a natural catastrophe, but a human choice. The US and European literature defend the war which killed 75 to 80 million lives. The war was a moral event agonize values, culture, and belief systems. Still, the costs of the war roar in Russian and neighbourly countries. The Japanese bombed Chinese cities in 1937 and killed thousands; the atrocities happened to Germans in Dresden, and Tokyo killed 60,000 and 110,000 in a single night. These events define the war as a default moral lens. The US and other actors historically justify WWII on moral grounds. Whether, the entry of the US was necessary or not, does the US entry into the war led Hitler to such agonizing atrocities, the answer is full of ambience. The history of victors’ supports ‘Just war’ likely propagandizing the war phobia in an expansionist and hegemonic sense.

The US moral and political support seems to maintain national interests and autonomy; spread democratic principles based on equity and freedom and to protect Jews from Nazis. The state of Russia believes the victory over Nazi Germany, secured Jews from Hitler, believed to be a moral triumph. This sensibility is meant to support moral grounds of the war, and control public from disintegration and opposition.

President Roosevelt outlines in his famous State of the Union speech, “We seek to make secure freedom of Speech and worship everywhere in the world”. This was his moral justification that still lingers in the US and Europe is believed the rationale of moral justification. On the other hand, Japan and Germany were belligerent to go any extent, but, never were intended to conquer the US and the rest of the world. This is what masses believe that communism or whether fascism may have slow economic progress, but, never intend to harm ‘others’. They believe that, historically, axis powers wanted to dominate and rule their regions to some or greater extent, but no state was in a condition to bomb others with a weapon of mass destructions (WMD). The man-made catastrophe resulted in 75 to 80 million deaths, and unprecedented consequences ever happened. It became a moral scenario than a political or diplomatic question for analysts, historians and academics.

The commonsense tells us about the moral violations in a crystal clear way. The war in which the US dropped 2000 thousand tons of bombs on mostly densely parts of Tokyo’s cities, killed over 85,000 people; the Nazis killed 6 million Jews; more than 400,000 American’s died, Great Britain lost more than 450,000; Germany lost 10 million, and Japan lost 3 million. The opinion that no country wants an escalation in war is acclaimed generally. The legacy of World War II still roars to a greater extent suggests disarmament, deterrence and non-nuclear proliferation. Today, hegemony in any form is condemned by world governments and global citizens. In nutshell, there is no ‘necessary war’, and nothing could justify any war in any condition, necessity alone does not make a war just in time and space. Still, chauvinists whether in the US or Europe or the rest of the world try to justify wars, neglecting moral values. The ideas that the US and allies are not ready to co-exist with the rest of the states and wants to establish a unipolar world is a distant dream. The world is clearer and fairer to decide any future policy considering collective life, love and peace. In South Asia including India and Pakistan have also strict notions about the imperialism, Fascism, and totalitarianism. In nutshell, struggling to achieve world peace by engaging world governments is the need of the hour. We should condemn any harmful act in its form and manifestation, so world peace becomes a reality.

The writer is interested in Sociology focused study is in Post-colonialism, epistemology, metaphysics, & consciousness, Kamrankarim96@gmail.com