Key Activity

Gabriel De Anda Alanís - A01285969

World War II was an international conflict between 1939 to 1945. Thanks to this war, we
have a better way to see how to solve solutions by getting a word agreement, because
Germany after the war had a lot to pay, and a really high debt for all damages and
destruction they made between those years.

Some of the causes that led to World War II are the Treaty of Versailles following WWI, the
worldwide economic depression, failure of appeasement, the rise of militarism in Germany
and Japan, and the failure of the League of Nations. The effects that World War II left behind
were the cities laid in ruins. The combat and bombing in the city destroyed everything, and
the punishment to Germany was really big, because of all the damages they did in the war.

For the essay I will use the perspectives of the Nazis to understand better the reason and
the mission behind why they wanted to conquer Europe, and also use the perspective of the
ones who didn't want the war and fought versus Germany so they could live better.

“Defend Paris to the last, destroy all bridges over the Seine and devastate the city.”

Adolf Hitler—August, 1944

Here in this citation we can see one command that he gave in the war, we can argue that he
was frustrated because maybe he was losing territory, and wanted to prevent that as early
as possible by trying to devastate the city so no one could stay in there. Also we can see
how he expresses straight commands and also feels like he is afraid, trying to do as many
as possible, so they didn ́t lose that much territory, and have time to prepare for their next
mission.

“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt, March 4, 1933—Inaugural address

This phrase was one of the many he said in his Inaugural Address, and was years before the
World War II even started, but we can conclude that maybe we was knowing things about
how in Europe was everything, and that they should be prepared, and not fear anything
because they were good as they are.

Talking about World War II, the Allies, which consisted primarily of the United States, the
United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, were opposed to the Axis powers during World War
II, which were led by Germany, Japan, and Italy. There were many reasons why the Allies
were against the Axis powers.

Some of the reasons of why they were against are:

- They were also engaged in war crimes and atrocities against civilian populations. This
argument is based on historical evidence of the Holocaust, the Rape of Nanking, and other
war crimes committed by the axis powers during the war.

- The allies had a moral obligation to defend the principles of democracy and human rights.
This argument is based on the belief that the axis powers represented a threat to the values
and freedoms that the allies stood for.

- The axis powers posed a direct military threat to the allies. This argument is based on the
fact that Germany, Italy, and Japan were all building up their armed forces and expanding
their military capabilities.

The trustworthiness of this many evidences that have been uncovered with the past of the
years. An example for the argument is the documentary “Auschwitz: Inside the Nazi State”,
which talks more about the Holocaust, and one of their death camps. But there are also
books and interviews with survivors which explain better the situation of those years.

The values and/or principles I used to justify the perspective above are:

- Democracy: The belief that people have the right to self-governance and participate in the
political process. The allies were primarily democratic nations, and they saw the
expansionist and authoritarian nature of the axis powers as a direct threat to the democratic
values they held.
- Human rights: The belief that all people are entitled to certain fundamental rights and
freedoms, such as freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. The axis powers were known
for their widespread violations of human rights, including the Holocaust and other war crimes
against civilian populations. The allies saw it as their moral duty to protect these rights and
hold the axis powers accountable for their actions.

It is important to note that while there are many different theories and interpretations
regarding why the Nazis wanted to conquer Europe, many of these arguments are based on
fallacies, mistaken interpretations, and lack of reasons.

Some arguments that have been made about why they wanted to conquer Europe:

- The Nazis wanted to dominate the world and establish a new order under their rule.
However, there is no factual evidence to support the notion that the conquest of Europe was
necessary to achieve this goal. Also, this argument ignores the fact that the Nazis' vision of a
new world order was one based on hate, violence, and oppression.

- They also wanted to create a buffer zone against the Soviet Union because of their fear to
communism and Soviet influence in Europe. There’s not factual evidence also about this
argument. And also left out the fact that the Nazis' actions actually led to the Soviet Union
becoming a major power in Europe after the war.

The area of philosophy that I will use to analyze the problematic of World War II is ethics,
specifically the subfield of just war theory. Just war theory is concerned with the moral
principles that govern the use of force in warfare and is a central topic in applied ethics.

The philosophical issue or problem that arises in the context of World War II is whether the
use of force in the war was morally justifiable, and whether the actions taken by the different
parties in the conflict were in accordance with the principles of just war theory.

And here some of the questions that arise while making up the philosophical issue:

- Was the decision to go to war morally justifiable?

- Were the principles of just war theory followed by the different parties in the conflict,
including both the Axis and Allied powers?
Just war theory is relevant to analyze the problematic of World War II because it provides a
framework for evaluating the moral justification of the use of force in warfare. By examining
the principles of just war theory and applying them to the actions taken during the war, we
can assess the moral legitimacy of the different parties' actions.

I identify two opposed philosophical perspectives that could be considered when discussing
the morality of war and the principles of just war theory, which are pacifism and realism.

Pacifism opposes the use of violence or war in any circumstances, even in self-defense.
Pacifists argue that violence only begets violence and that there are always alternative
non-violent solutions to conflicts. On the other hand, Realism emphasizes the use of power
and self-interest in international relations. Realists argue that war is sometimes necessary to
protect national interests and that international relations are fundamentally anarchic and
competitive.

I agree more with the pacifism perspective, because it opposes the use of the violence or
war. I have always thought that to solve a problem or conflict between two entities, dialogue
is the best solution. Explain the reasons why there are differences and be able to reach
some solution. Now talking about the realism perspective, which finds the use of power and
self-interest better than a non-violent way to solve a conflict, I disagree with this way of
solving a conflict, because as I said before, a dialogue is the best solution. Finding a way for
both of us to live in peace, but without having to fight violently for that freedom, or else, is the
way I see best.

The key difference between pacifism and realism lies in their views on the use of violence.
Pacifism rejects the use of violence under any circumstances, while realism accepts it as a
legitimate tool.

I think they are two perspectives that have marked us for many years, and that will continue
in the talk for many years. You realize with the passing of time how useful it was to see the
two perspectives in practice, and everything that we have learned as a society to apply or
one or the other, where both will have their advantages and disadvantages.