The Actual Virtue of War, and its Affect on Mankind
Although many see war in general as necessary, when it is specified down to the battle, we discover the hidden, animalistic rage in each human. It is in our nature. In class over the past weeks, we have studied the warfare used in World War 1, as well as World War 2. While doing this, we began to develop a deep, meaningful perspective on the morality of war, and how it changes with time. The truth of war for any soldier can vary depending on what defines the specified soldier personally. And to understand these characteristics, my classmates and I read two different novels. One novel we read was All Quiet on the Western Front, and the other was Slaughterhouse-Five, and both novels were written from a soldier’s perspective, and took place during both World Wars. Slaughterhouse-Five gave me the idea of what “urban warfare” looked like. Urban warfare takes place in a city, using that city as a war zone, and was used in WW2, in contrast to WW1’s “trench warfare”, which was simply a pair of opposing armies’ trenches filled with soldiers, whom fought in the area between the trenches in what was known as “no man’s land”. These two variations of warfare differed greatly, and contrasted each other on many different levels involving the morality of the war, the involvement of a nation’s civilians, etc.
Throughout the duration of WW1, civilians were not involved for the most part. This would change greatly by WW2. The bombing of Dresden, a city that existed in Germany during WW2 (and still exists today), killed over 100,000 civilians. That bombing serves as a perfect example of a nation’s civilian involvement in the war. The bombing of Dresden also serves as an example of the morality behind war. Morality can be based on a variation of the affect of the weaponry used, death-imprisonment ratios, and especially the affect on the mentality of anyone involved. War can take a toll on us all, especially the soldiers directly involved. The soldiers’ experiences in war are directly affected by a combination of several variables, including the personality of that soldier, as well as the morality of the war they are involved with based on how the warfare is evolved at that point. War, which many consider immoral and unjustifiable as long as people are dying, can take a great charge on civilians, soldiers, the economy of a nation, and even the world as a whole. The future we are creating for our children is sick, and inhumane. We are leaving them with a liability that they will have to endure just to overcome conflict through the use of war, and this needs to be recognized.
Throughout the years we have fought in the world, we have noticed a lot of shifting regarding the warfare being used. The change in the manufacturing of weaponry that is mainly responsible for the revolution in warfare is most likely due to the acceleration of production and understanding of weaponry. For example, a very limited style of weaponry was used during WW1. World War 1 was entirely fought between trenches in the ground on a set battleground that was dug out by soldiers pre-battle. When the battles began, the trenches would fill with soldiers, and the enemies would shell each other (meaning shells would be launched from mortars from each side to where the enemy was), but most of the hand-to-hand fighting, as well as firefights, happened between the trenches on a flat territory in what was called “no man’s land”. This warfare, altogether of course, was called “trench warfare”. Whole armies would be set to fight each other, given a single direction to run into the fight in hopes they wouldn’t be shot or even, sadly, destroyed, by grenades, carbines, stationary machineguns, albatross’ (which were planes set with a gunman on a machinegun that flew over the trenches), pistols, and more. Mustard gas was also found to be a common weapon, being that it was heavier than air, and could settle and float within the walls of an enemy’s trench. As you can see, World War 1 was a very bloody, dangerous, and animalistic display of violence. The combination of all of this evolved weaponry brought many soldiers to their deaths. The soldiers themselves didn’t have much freedom, because they were sent straight into no man’s land from their trenches, without much area to move about freely. The bloodshed already seemed to be at it’s worst. Weapons consisted of mainly carbines, shells, immobilized machineguns, and mustard gas. These, being the most advanced forms of weaponry during that time period, were, of course, favored. But since then, we have seen a huge difference in national armory. Throughout World War 2, the warfare used was called “urban warfare”. This meant that the soldiers of each army would go and fight in a city, without any real set battleground other than that city. This gave the soldiers more room to move about freely, and make decisions for themselves regarding when and where to cross into the enemy’s territory. But World War 2 did have different, more advanced weaponry in comparison to that used in WW1. For example, although tanks were first introduced, and occasionally used, in WW1, they were not ideal for trench territory. They would get stuck in a trench, or couldn’t even maneuver out of shell holes sometimes. However, because the land fought on in WW2 was more flat and open, tanks were more commonly used, and could maneuver wherever, like between buildings, and they could do so in the warzone itself. Machineguns were also mobilized in WW2, and could be wheeled to their desired location, or even held by a soldier, spitting out multiple bullets per second. The albatross concept was still being used, although this time, the planes used weren’t biplanes, but instead, single-winged on both sides. This made them more agile, and therefore, more deadly. The allied groups of nations were able to use this technology against each other, furthering the amount of bloodshed altogether in World War 2. In Slaughterhouse 5, on page 177, Vonnegut states from Billy’s point of view, “There were sounds like giant footsteps above. Those were sticks of high-explosive bombs. The giants walked and walked.” This is the part of the novel where Billy and other POW’s (prisoners of war) were being kept in an underground facility, while above, the city they were under, Dresden, was being fire-bombed. Dresden is possibly one of the most devastating bombings that has taken place yet. Also stated in Slaughterhouse 5, “They would do well to read this book and ponder the fate of Dresden, where 135,000 people died as a result of an air attack with conventional weapons. On the night of March 9th, 1945, an air attack on Tokyo by American heavy bombers, using incendiary and high explosive bombs, caused the death of 83,793 people. The atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed 71,379 people.” (Vonnegut, 188). These are all arguably the most devastating bombings that have taken place in human history, and all have taken place as result of World War 2. And still, weaponry will go through an even greater shift in the future. Today, soldiers are armed with a very wide variation of weapons; like faster, stronger, and more powerful tanks, semi or fully automatic assault rifles. Each weapon, in fact, can be modified to the objective given to that soldier. For example, grenade launchers, laser pointers, and other attachments are often rigged onto assault rifles in order to give an alternative media of weapon use. These weaponry changes have lead us into a more complex form of warfare. Another factor affecting the modification of weaponry includes the need to overpower the enemy. By this, I mean one nation desires more advanced, powerful weaponry than that of the opposing nation. In response, the opposing nation decides to adapt its weaponry and defenses to either survive the enemy bombardment, or in order to enforce power over that enemy. A perfect example of this cycle being used is the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima in Japan during WW2 by the United States in response to a simpler form of bombing on Pearl Harbor by Japan as a well-devised plan of attack on the US. These cycles always seem to go on, and without control. Of course, there is no way a nation will be willing to stop enhancing its weaponry, due to its desire to maintain or strengthen the level of power and control it has in the world. This desire can lead to many variations of the affect of war on any man or woman in general, because the cycle will never end, always bringing more terrible, devastating weapons into play in the equation.
As this cycle continues, it, in turn, seems to have a great affect on the morality of warfare. We have examined throughout history as this cycle takes place; while the morality of warfare rapidly becomes better, or more commonly, worse. This cycle can be compared to a wheel rolling down a hill with no clear ending. There is no well-defined method of ending or stopping the cycle. But it all began long ago, from the warfare used in past wars. The warfare used in World War 1 lead to a very immoral fight: “We see men living with their skulls blown open; we see soldiers run with their two feet cut off, they stagger on their splintered stumps into the next shell-hole; a lance-corporal crawls a mile and a half on his hands dragging his smashed knees after him; another goes to the dressing station and over his clasped hands bulge his intestines; we see men without mouths, without jaws, without faces; we find one man who has held the artery of his arm in his teeth for two hours in order not to bleed to death. The sun goes down, night comes, the shells whine, life is at an end.” (Remarque, 134) Given the fact that this entire novel (All Quiet on the Western Front) was written by an ex-soldier from World War 1, people could imagine a lot of this is based on his own experiences, which again, in turn, leads them to consider World War 1 as a whole a very merciless blood bath, and a very immoral historical event between soldiers. Soldiers and civilians alike are, and always will be, as long as humanity is in existence on Earth, affected by the weaponry used in war. The visions of people dying or being greatly injured by more and more devastating weaponry can lead anyone into future mental issues, like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and/or possibly even lead them to take their own lives, in belief that life serves no meaning to them, after seeing the life of one who they love, or are close to, be taken through the use of demoralizing weaponry. All of these variations of mindset change after envisioning the violence demonstrated by weaponry can be summarized with simple words; like sad, devastating, depressing, and most importantly, immoral. Hopefully, as time goes on, war will become additionally moral as nations could, with any luck, begin manufacturing weaponry based on how ethical, or humane, the people mutually believe it should be. With that, the warfare might differ in a positive fashion in comparison to how we’ve seen it in the past.
In modern day, it seems as though war is becoming more civil. Although people are often dying in wars, the levels of death appear to be a lot lower, with a much healthier developing prisoner-death ratio. Due to wars in the 20th century alone, more than 100 million people lost their lives. After World War 2, it was estimated that around 61 million people died as a result of that war itself. The majority of these lives lost were civilians; the civilian-soldier death ratio for the entire 20th century was approximately measured to be 10:1. The statistics given about the modern Iraqi war show the civilian-soldier death ratio to be 1:2, which, when compared to 20th century statistics, is considerably an impressive improvement. There have been less than 29,000 combat deaths in the Iraqi war, which, although is still very sad, can be considered an improvement from World War 2. This is most likely because of our use of machinery in war. By this, I mean current day wars are more often fought between tanks, drones, etc., rather than people. In fact, the amounts of civilian deaths caused by US drone attacks in Pakistan over the last 2 years have been estimated to no more than 20 to 30 people (Civilian, 2012). Therefore, the outcome of advanced war machinery has shown up well in overall statistics in comparison to the previous World Wars. However, as long as men are dying in any war, that war may be considered completely unjustifiable. The common experiences soldiers encounter are very gloomy, miserable, and devastating. Even in wars today, these experiences are being mutually confronted without justifiable meaning. What we need to more often consider, rather than the affect of war on international relations or national economy, is the fact that we are shedding life from men.
We have somehow been able to let time pass while soldiers, and even civilians, give their lives to a sometimes-pointless form of violence. Imprisonment, on the other hand, may be considered much more civil, as well as necessary. No one truly knows what happens to a man or woman beyond death. Many people in the world turn to religion as an answer to this mysterious happening. And yet, even those who are religious, and believe in an afterlife fear death, alike to those who aren’t religious, or don’t believe in an afterlife. Everyone must learn to embrace life, as it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity (of course). But we saw in wars like WW1, when governments sent millions of men, religious or not, straight to their deaths. Guiding any man, willing or unwilling, to his death seems more than inhumane or wrong. It is animalistic. So not only have we grown in humanity to settle disputes through war, we have also lost all sense of sanity. It would have been lucky for any soldier in a past war to be captured, like in WW2. With imprisonment, although the prisoners’ lives become restricted in comparison to how they were before the war, at least they get to keep their lives, and are typically released after the war back into their home nation. This makes imprisonment very favorable in war, and in this time period, imprisonment seems to occur more often than the death of a soldier or civilian. So, although it seems like the way we are heading with our wars is an immensely growing moral path, we must, as humanity, find a way to make it more justifiable, as well as be able to live with it, as it’s a part of our nature.
The mindsets of soldiers involved in WW1 were diversified based on any soldiers’ views on the battles they are a part of, as well as the general personality of a given soldier. A soldier in WW1 might immediately come to the realization that he has a very high chance of dying in action, and this could be very demoralizing to him, which was extremely common between soldiers during that time, for the most part. This gave soldiers a desolate sense of feeling, and often made them turn to their comrades for comfort. With that, as the war went on, for many troops, their sense of feeling, or even memories, from their past lives regarding home life, family, and old friends, began to disintegrate; leaving them with the sense that war life is the only life they know, which, in turn, lead them to accept it as their permanent lifestyle, leaving them with nothing if they survive the end of the war. The visions soldiers experienced during WW1, like the sight of a comrade who grew close to them dying before their eyes, left an upsetting crater in those soldiers’ minds, leaving them with no sense of happiness after the war. Even when these soldiers were sent home, they felt as though everything was taken from them, given that, again, they had accepted war as their set lifestyle: “I ought never to have come on leave,” (Remarque, 185). WW1 served as an example of the morality of war at its seemingly lowest form. However, with the civilian involvement in WW2, we can see that morality can reach a much lower level.
The morality of a war is based off of the levels of devastation caused by that war, ranging from living-death ratios to the overall crater of effect the war leaves on any soldier’s mentality or physical condition. When troops come home, although it might be considered a miracle they are still alive, life may never return to the way it was for them before they took part in the war. These affects can impact the morality of a war based on how negative the affects are. War can affect any soldier centered on the kind of personality they have, and how they view the battles they are thrown into, like what they appreciate about them, or how the battles terrorize them. In All Quiet on the Western Front, page 274, Paul states, “…it has awakened in us the sense of comradeship, so that we escape the abyss of solitude – it has lent us the indifference of wild creatures, so that in spite of it all, we perceive the positive in every moment, and store it up as a reserve against the onslaught of nothingness.” This, I believe, displays a perfect example of the positive views a soldier can have about the battle they are thrown into, although for many men, it isn’t always enough to get them through it. Many soldiers experience Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after the war. This has taken the horror from any battle, and permanently implanted it into their minds. This disorder, other mental illnesses suffered because of the war, as well as physical illness, like loss of appendages or senses, brings many ex-soldiers over the brink of suicide, and every day, several take their lives. Until humanity can learn to remove fighting and war from the equation, society will never function as a mutually sane culture.
It does already appear as though humanity is on the path for creating a better, thoroughly justifiable future in war, and hopefully, with time, the aspects will continue to change in this way. If possible, in the future, we could completely resolve to a better, more rationalized form of war, such as a war fought entirely over machinery, like unmanned drones, the effects would be wonderful. These amended forms of war could, possibly, be executed by our nation, the US, through the proposal of new forms of war by the Vice President. Because in a time like this, what we need most is a moral form of settling disputes through war. And not only could these modified systems of war make it more justifiable, they could lead us to a substantially more sane culture.
Works Cited
"Civilian casualty ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. N.p., 25 Oct. 2012. Web. 25 Oct. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio>.
Remarque, Erich Maria, and A. W. Wheen. All quiet on the western front;. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1929. Print.
Vonnegut, Kurt. Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse five. Philadelphia: Chelsea
House Publishers, 2001. Print.
Throughout the duration of WW1, civilians were not involved for the most part. This would change greatly by WW2. The bombing of Dresden, a city that existed in Germany during WW2 (and still exists today), killed over 100,000 civilians. That bombing serves as a perfect example of a nation’s civilian involvement in the war. The bombing of Dresden also serves as an example of the morality behind war. Morality can be based on a variation of the affect of the weaponry used, death-imprisonment ratios, and especially the affect on the mentality of anyone involved. War can take a toll on us all, especially the soldiers directly involved. The soldiers’ experiences in war are directly affected by a combination of several variables, including the personality of that soldier, as well as the morality of the war they are involved with based on how the warfare is evolved at that point. War, which many consider immoral and unjustifiable as long as people are dying, can take a great charge on civilians, soldiers, the economy of a nation, and even the world as a whole. The future we are creating for our children is sick, and inhumane. We are leaving them with a liability that they will have to endure just to overcome conflict through the use of war, and this needs to be recognized.
Throughout the years we have fought in the world, we have noticed a lot of shifting regarding the warfare being used. The change in the manufacturing of weaponry that is mainly responsible for the revolution in warfare is most likely due to the acceleration of production and understanding of weaponry. For example, a very limited style of weaponry was used during WW1. World War 1 was entirely fought between trenches in the ground on a set battleground that was dug out by soldiers pre-battle. When the battles began, the trenches would fill with soldiers, and the enemies would shell each other (meaning shells would be launched from mortars from each side to where the enemy was), but most of the hand-to-hand fighting, as well as firefights, happened between the trenches on a flat territory in what was called “no man’s land”. This warfare, altogether of course, was called “trench warfare”. Whole armies would be set to fight each other, given a single direction to run into the fight in hopes they wouldn’t be shot or even, sadly, destroyed, by grenades, carbines, stationary machineguns, albatross’ (which were planes set with a gunman on a machinegun that flew over the trenches), pistols, and more. Mustard gas was also found to be a common weapon, being that it was heavier than air, and could settle and float within the walls of an enemy’s trench. As you can see, World War 1 was a very bloody, dangerous, and animalistic display of violence. The combination of all of this evolved weaponry brought many soldiers to their deaths. The soldiers themselves didn’t have much freedom, because they were sent straight into no man’s land from their trenches, without much area to move about freely. The bloodshed already seemed to be at it’s worst. Weapons consisted of mainly carbines, shells, immobilized machineguns, and mustard gas. These, being the most advanced forms of weaponry during that time period, were, of course, favored. But since then, we have seen a huge difference in national armory. Throughout World War 2, the warfare used was called “urban warfare”. This meant that the soldiers of each army would go and fight in a city, without any real set battleground other than that city. This gave the soldiers more room to move about freely, and make decisions for themselves regarding when and where to cross into the enemy’s territory. But World War 2 did have different, more advanced weaponry in comparison to that used in WW1. For example, although tanks were first introduced, and occasionally used, in WW1, they were not ideal for trench territory. They would get stuck in a trench, or couldn’t even maneuver out of shell holes sometimes. However, because the land fought on in WW2 was more flat and open, tanks were more commonly used, and could maneuver wherever, like between buildings, and they could do so in the warzone itself. Machineguns were also mobilized in WW2, and could be wheeled to their desired location, or even held by a soldier, spitting out multiple bullets per second. The albatross concept was still being used, although this time, the planes used weren’t biplanes, but instead, single-winged on both sides. This made them more agile, and therefore, more deadly. The allied groups of nations were able to use this technology against each other, furthering the amount of bloodshed altogether in World War 2. In Slaughterhouse 5, on page 177, Vonnegut states from Billy’s point of view, “There were sounds like giant footsteps above. Those were sticks of high-explosive bombs. The giants walked and walked.” This is the part of the novel where Billy and other POW’s (prisoners of war) were being kept in an underground facility, while above, the city they were under, Dresden, was being fire-bombed. Dresden is possibly one of the most devastating bombings that has taken place yet. Also stated in Slaughterhouse 5, “They would do well to read this book and ponder the fate of Dresden, where 135,000 people died as a result of an air attack with conventional weapons. On the night of March 9th, 1945, an air attack on Tokyo by American heavy bombers, using incendiary and high explosive bombs, caused the death of 83,793 people. The atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed 71,379 people.” (Vonnegut, 188). These are all arguably the most devastating bombings that have taken place in human history, and all have taken place as result of World War 2. And still, weaponry will go through an even greater shift in the future. Today, soldiers are armed with a very wide variation of weapons; like faster, stronger, and more powerful tanks, semi or fully automatic assault rifles. Each weapon, in fact, can be modified to the objective given to that soldier. For example, grenade launchers, laser pointers, and other attachments are often rigged onto assault rifles in order to give an alternative media of weapon use. These weaponry changes have lead us into a more complex form of warfare. Another factor affecting the modification of weaponry includes the need to overpower the enemy. By this, I mean one nation desires more advanced, powerful weaponry than that of the opposing nation. In response, the opposing nation decides to adapt its weaponry and defenses to either survive the enemy bombardment, or in order to enforce power over that enemy. A perfect example of this cycle being used is the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima in Japan during WW2 by the United States in response to a simpler form of bombing on Pearl Harbor by Japan as a well-devised plan of attack on the US. These cycles always seem to go on, and without control. Of course, there is no way a nation will be willing to stop enhancing its weaponry, due to its desire to maintain or strengthen the level of power and control it has in the world. This desire can lead to many variations of the affect of war on any man or woman in general, because the cycle will never end, always bringing more terrible, devastating weapons into play in the equation.
As this cycle continues, it, in turn, seems to have a great affect on the morality of warfare. We have examined throughout history as this cycle takes place; while the morality of warfare rapidly becomes better, or more commonly, worse. This cycle can be compared to a wheel rolling down a hill with no clear ending. There is no well-defined method of ending or stopping the cycle. But it all began long ago, from the warfare used in past wars. The warfare used in World War 1 lead to a very immoral fight: “We see men living with their skulls blown open; we see soldiers run with their two feet cut off, they stagger on their splintered stumps into the next shell-hole; a lance-corporal crawls a mile and a half on his hands dragging his smashed knees after him; another goes to the dressing station and over his clasped hands bulge his intestines; we see men without mouths, without jaws, without faces; we find one man who has held the artery of his arm in his teeth for two hours in order not to bleed to death. The sun goes down, night comes, the shells whine, life is at an end.” (Remarque, 134) Given the fact that this entire novel (All Quiet on the Western Front) was written by an ex-soldier from World War 1, people could imagine a lot of this is based on his own experiences, which again, in turn, leads them to consider World War 1 as a whole a very merciless blood bath, and a very immoral historical event between soldiers. Soldiers and civilians alike are, and always will be, as long as humanity is in existence on Earth, affected by the weaponry used in war. The visions of people dying or being greatly injured by more and more devastating weaponry can lead anyone into future mental issues, like Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and/or possibly even lead them to take their own lives, in belief that life serves no meaning to them, after seeing the life of one who they love, or are close to, be taken through the use of demoralizing weaponry. All of these variations of mindset change after envisioning the violence demonstrated by weaponry can be summarized with simple words; like sad, devastating, depressing, and most importantly, immoral. Hopefully, as time goes on, war will become additionally moral as nations could, with any luck, begin manufacturing weaponry based on how ethical, or humane, the people mutually believe it should be. With that, the warfare might differ in a positive fashion in comparison to how we’ve seen it in the past.
In modern day, it seems as though war is becoming more civil. Although people are often dying in wars, the levels of death appear to be a lot lower, with a much healthier developing prisoner-death ratio. Due to wars in the 20th century alone, more than 100 million people lost their lives. After World War 2, it was estimated that around 61 million people died as a result of that war itself. The majority of these lives lost were civilians; the civilian-soldier death ratio for the entire 20th century was approximately measured to be 10:1. The statistics given about the modern Iraqi war show the civilian-soldier death ratio to be 1:2, which, when compared to 20th century statistics, is considerably an impressive improvement. There have been less than 29,000 combat deaths in the Iraqi war, which, although is still very sad, can be considered an improvement from World War 2. This is most likely because of our use of machinery in war. By this, I mean current day wars are more often fought between tanks, drones, etc., rather than people. In fact, the amounts of civilian deaths caused by US drone attacks in Pakistan over the last 2 years have been estimated to no more than 20 to 30 people (Civilian, 2012). Therefore, the outcome of advanced war machinery has shown up well in overall statistics in comparison to the previous World Wars. However, as long as men are dying in any war, that war may be considered completely unjustifiable. The common experiences soldiers encounter are very gloomy, miserable, and devastating. Even in wars today, these experiences are being mutually confronted without justifiable meaning. What we need to more often consider, rather than the affect of war on international relations or national economy, is the fact that we are shedding life from men.
We have somehow been able to let time pass while soldiers, and even civilians, give their lives to a sometimes-pointless form of violence. Imprisonment, on the other hand, may be considered much more civil, as well as necessary. No one truly knows what happens to a man or woman beyond death. Many people in the world turn to religion as an answer to this mysterious happening. And yet, even those who are religious, and believe in an afterlife fear death, alike to those who aren’t religious, or don’t believe in an afterlife. Everyone must learn to embrace life, as it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity (of course). But we saw in wars like WW1, when governments sent millions of men, religious or not, straight to their deaths. Guiding any man, willing or unwilling, to his death seems more than inhumane or wrong. It is animalistic. So not only have we grown in humanity to settle disputes through war, we have also lost all sense of sanity. It would have been lucky for any soldier in a past war to be captured, like in WW2. With imprisonment, although the prisoners’ lives become restricted in comparison to how they were before the war, at least they get to keep their lives, and are typically released after the war back into their home nation. This makes imprisonment very favorable in war, and in this time period, imprisonment seems to occur more often than the death of a soldier or civilian. So, although it seems like the way we are heading with our wars is an immensely growing moral path, we must, as humanity, find a way to make it more justifiable, as well as be able to live with it, as it’s a part of our nature.
The mindsets of soldiers involved in WW1 were diversified based on any soldiers’ views on the battles they are a part of, as well as the general personality of a given soldier. A soldier in WW1 might immediately come to the realization that he has a very high chance of dying in action, and this could be very demoralizing to him, which was extremely common between soldiers during that time, for the most part. This gave soldiers a desolate sense of feeling, and often made them turn to their comrades for comfort. With that, as the war went on, for many troops, their sense of feeling, or even memories, from their past lives regarding home life, family, and old friends, began to disintegrate; leaving them with the sense that war life is the only life they know, which, in turn, lead them to accept it as their permanent lifestyle, leaving them with nothing if they survive the end of the war. The visions soldiers experienced during WW1, like the sight of a comrade who grew close to them dying before their eyes, left an upsetting crater in those soldiers’ minds, leaving them with no sense of happiness after the war. Even when these soldiers were sent home, they felt as though everything was taken from them, given that, again, they had accepted war as their set lifestyle: “I ought never to have come on leave,” (Remarque, 185). WW1 served as an example of the morality of war at its seemingly lowest form. However, with the civilian involvement in WW2, we can see that morality can reach a much lower level.
The morality of a war is based off of the levels of devastation caused by that war, ranging from living-death ratios to the overall crater of effect the war leaves on any soldier’s mentality or physical condition. When troops come home, although it might be considered a miracle they are still alive, life may never return to the way it was for them before they took part in the war. These affects can impact the morality of a war based on how negative the affects are. War can affect any soldier centered on the kind of personality they have, and how they view the battles they are thrown into, like what they appreciate about them, or how the battles terrorize them. In All Quiet on the Western Front, page 274, Paul states, “…it has awakened in us the sense of comradeship, so that we escape the abyss of solitude – it has lent us the indifference of wild creatures, so that in spite of it all, we perceive the positive in every moment, and store it up as a reserve against the onslaught of nothingness.” This, I believe, displays a perfect example of the positive views a soldier can have about the battle they are thrown into, although for many men, it isn’t always enough to get them through it. Many soldiers experience Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after the war. This has taken the horror from any battle, and permanently implanted it into their minds. This disorder, other mental illnesses suffered because of the war, as well as physical illness, like loss of appendages or senses, brings many ex-soldiers over the brink of suicide, and every day, several take their lives. Until humanity can learn to remove fighting and war from the equation, society will never function as a mutually sane culture.
It does already appear as though humanity is on the path for creating a better, thoroughly justifiable future in war, and hopefully, with time, the aspects will continue to change in this way. If possible, in the future, we could completely resolve to a better, more rationalized form of war, such as a war fought entirely over machinery, like unmanned drones, the effects would be wonderful. These amended forms of war could, possibly, be executed by our nation, the US, through the proposal of new forms of war by the Vice President. Because in a time like this, what we need most is a moral form of settling disputes through war. And not only could these modified systems of war make it more justifiable, they could lead us to a substantially more sane culture.
Works Cited
"Civilian casualty ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. N.p., 25 Oct. 2012. Web. 25 Oct. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio>.
Remarque, Erich Maria, and A. W. Wheen. All quiet on the western front;. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1929. Print.
Vonnegut, Kurt. Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse five. Philadelphia: Chelsea
House Publishers, 2001. Print.
Truth of War Project Reflection
Throughout the last few months of school in Humanities, we have been attempting to come to a deep understanding of the “truth of war”, basically meaning how moral, or justifiable, the war actually is. In order to build this understanding, we have been assigned 2 books to read. One book, All Quiet on the Western Front, was written from the point of view of a German soldier during World War 1. Throughout the duration of this book, the soldier describes his experiences with battle, survival, and comradeship. This book really helped me recognize the horrors presented through battle in war, such as the wrongful, meaningless death and violence. The other book we were assigned to read is entitled Slaughterhouse-Five, and is written from the perspective of a troop in World War 2 named Billy Pilgrim, who was said to have been abducted by aliens, who gave him a completely different perspective of time, and this newly-obtained perspective allowed Billy to travel through time, that is, back and forth in his life. Slaughterhouse-Five actually did a very good job in describing the pointlessness in war, but also the horrors that ensued, describing just how unjustifiable they really are. Along with these novels, we completed a series of different assignments, such as analyzing the bombing of Dresden from several different perspectives. After using these means of study, I have come to an understanding of my own definition of the truth of war. I believe war is nearly entirely unjustifiable, being that men go to war, where they basically lose themselves on the battlefield. By this, I mean when men or women go to war (considering they survive the war until they take leave), they experience things no one really should endure. And when they are presented with these experiences in action, the affects leave a crater in their ego, personality, and, as a whole, their lifestyle. With these affects, I believe that war is completely wrong and devastating. And the fact is, war doesn’t just cause devastation to soldiers, but also has a negative impact on the economy of nations involved in the war. With a mixture of all of these affects war has on humanity, I do not even vaguely understand the point of it.
To complete this project, I used the Habit of Heart and Mind “perseverance”. Through using perseverance, I was able to keep trying my hardest to not only piece my essay connecting to my art piece together, but also complete my sculpture on time. The sculpture itself displays a soldier kneeling behind a small brick wall, aiming a rocket launcher resting on is shoulder into the distance. The sculpture was looking very nice originally, as in, before the clay was completely dried. However, when I left it to dry overnight, it sadly fell apart, and did so a few more times after that. However, it was due to my levels of perseverance that I was able to piece it back together using Gorilla Glue and a hot glue gun. The final sculpture, although not as beautiful as it was originally, I am very proud of, and can reflect well on the perseverance involved in its construction. Also, the brick wall was initially a larger wall of sandbags, but the clay I used was cheap, and the sandbags were entirely obliterated when I attempted to attach them to the wooden platform for the entire sculpture, obviously proving that refinement is not my strongest Habit of Heart and Mind.
Throughout the construction of the essay I created in connection to the sculpture, it had to undergo several revisions. One very large revision that I had to make was the template I was using for the essay. By this, I mean I had to piece the paragraphs much differently than they were originally in the rough draft. These revisions required a lot of cutting and pasting, as well as adding new paragraphs that related their previous paragraphs to the affects war had on soldiers. In doing this, the revisions made my essay have a substantially more logical flow in comparison to the rough draft. Another revision I made to my essay was the use of vocabulary. This revision varied in different areas on the essay. In some areas, for example, I had to change the wording to make it repetitive, and constant. In doing this, the reader could gain better understanding of what I was trying to say in the essay. In other areas, I just changed my vocabulary to a more complex version in order to make the writing seemingly more logical and/or interesting to the reader.
If I had another week to work on my project and essay, I would definitely work on the detail of my sculpture. And to do this, I would paint it, and scratch in more lines to define the expression on the soldier’s face, or the lines of his jacket. The paint would hopefully, as well, cover up some of the protruding glue in areas where I had to reattach appendages. To revise my essay, I think I would take out some of the sentences, because it seems like I’m a little repetitive with my writing in some areas. With that, I think the readers would become more interested in what I was saying in my writing.
To complete this project, I used the Habit of Heart and Mind “perseverance”. Through using perseverance, I was able to keep trying my hardest to not only piece my essay connecting to my art piece together, but also complete my sculpture on time. The sculpture itself displays a soldier kneeling behind a small brick wall, aiming a rocket launcher resting on is shoulder into the distance. The sculpture was looking very nice originally, as in, before the clay was completely dried. However, when I left it to dry overnight, it sadly fell apart, and did so a few more times after that. However, it was due to my levels of perseverance that I was able to piece it back together using Gorilla Glue and a hot glue gun. The final sculpture, although not as beautiful as it was originally, I am very proud of, and can reflect well on the perseverance involved in its construction. Also, the brick wall was initially a larger wall of sandbags, but the clay I used was cheap, and the sandbags were entirely obliterated when I attempted to attach them to the wooden platform for the entire sculpture, obviously proving that refinement is not my strongest Habit of Heart and Mind.
Throughout the construction of the essay I created in connection to the sculpture, it had to undergo several revisions. One very large revision that I had to make was the template I was using for the essay. By this, I mean I had to piece the paragraphs much differently than they were originally in the rough draft. These revisions required a lot of cutting and pasting, as well as adding new paragraphs that related their previous paragraphs to the affects war had on soldiers. In doing this, the revisions made my essay have a substantially more logical flow in comparison to the rough draft. Another revision I made to my essay was the use of vocabulary. This revision varied in different areas on the essay. In some areas, for example, I had to change the wording to make it repetitive, and constant. In doing this, the reader could gain better understanding of what I was trying to say in the essay. In other areas, I just changed my vocabulary to a more complex version in order to make the writing seemingly more logical and/or interesting to the reader.
If I had another week to work on my project and essay, I would definitely work on the detail of my sculpture. And to do this, I would paint it, and scratch in more lines to define the expression on the soldier’s face, or the lines of his jacket. The paint would hopefully, as well, cover up some of the protruding glue in areas where I had to reattach appendages. To revise my essay, I think I would take out some of the sentences, because it seems like I’m a little repetitive with my writing in some areas. With that, I think the readers would become more interested in what I was saying in my writing.
