The Morality of World War One

Michael White World War One Was Unjust

It is difficult to call an entire war just or unjust, according to the specific criteria of just war theory. The first World War was a complicated series of events involving many countries, each of which had its own motives and acted to preserve its perceived best interests. As a whole, the intentions and actions of the countries involved were mostly unjust, especially those of the Central Powers (AustriaHungary, Germany, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire). Even the Allies' (Britain, France, Russia and later Italy and the United States, among others) motives and conduct were sometimes questionable, though they have historically been regarded as having had the moral high ground. As people's historian Howard Zinn wrote, “no one since that day has been able to show that the war brought any gain for humanity that would be worth one human life,”1 much less the 15 million soldier and civilian deaths that occurred.2 The war was not a just war because it does not meet all the criteria of just war theory for the justice of the start of the war, the conduct of the war, and the end of the war. Even though the Allies' actions were considerably more just, possibly even wholly just, when one examines the war as a whole, it does not meet every principle of just war theory, so it is not a just war.  Jus ad bellum, literally “the justice of war,” deals with the morality of the start of the war, and

World War One fails its criteria. The most important part of  jus   jus ad bellum is just cause. The aggressors who started the war, mainly Austria-Hungary and Germany, did so for unjust causes. When Austria1 Zinn, Zinn, Howa Howard. rd.  A People's History of the United States. New York: HarperCollins, 2005. 359. 2 White, Matthew. Matthew. “Source List List and Detailed Death Tolls Tolls for for the Twentieth Twentieth Century Hemoclysm.” Hemoclysm.”

Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914, its main reason was to punish Serbia for the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by Serbian nationalists. While an assassination of  an heir to the throne could possibly be considered a just cause because it is a wrong received, it was not a just cause in this case because the assassination was carried out by the ultra-nationalist group the Black Hand, not the Serbian government or people. Though there was speculation about the Serbian government's role in the plot, there was never enough evidence to implicate the government, and certainly not enough to be a just cause for war. Also, Austria-Hungary responded too quickly to be just; the government did not have sufficient evidence that Serbia was actually involved in the assassination before declaring war. By the time the Black Hand, a radical Serbian nationalist group, had been identified as the culprit in the assassination weeks later, later ,3 war had already been declared, with the blame unjustly placed on Serbia in general. Even when Austria-Hungary, in the July Ultimatum, made demands of Serbia that were extreme and unfulfillable, and Serbia unexpectedly agreed to all but one, Austria-Hungary rejected anything but an unconditional acceptance of the ultimatum and attacked Serbia anyway. The ultimatum was merely an excuse to go to war. Regardless of whether the assassination might have been a just cause had the Serbian government been involved, Austria-Hungary violated the jus ad bellum criteria of right intention: a state must fight a war only for a just cause, not for ulterior motives, even if the declared cause is just, which in the case of Austria-Hungary it was not. Austria-Hungary took advantage of the impossibility of the July Ultimatum and the general sympathy in their favor after the assassination to start an unjust war. Austria-Hungary wanted both to punish Serbia and to stave off the threat to the Austro-Hungarian 3 Shackelford, Shackelford, Micheal. “The Black Black Hand.”

empire from the pan-Slavist separatist movement that aimed to united ethnic Serbs and other Slavic peoples in Balkan states that were part of its empire. The increasing size and power of Serbia after the Balkan Wars threatened Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary.4 Austria-Hungary began with an air bombardment of Belgrade, the Serbian capital, and AustriaHungary mobilized its troops for a ground attack, as did Russia, an ally of Serbia. Germany, having pledged beforehand to militarily support Austria-Hungary's actions, responded by issuing an ultimatum to Russia that they stop mobilizing troops, which they did not do, so Germany declared war on Russia. So, within a matter of days, all the European powers except Italy had entered the conflict because of a complex network of alliances. At the same time, Germany was beginning to implement its Schlieffen Plan for rapid victory on the Western Front in France. Germany hoped to quickly defeat France so they could concentrate all their resources on Russia and avoid a difficult two-front war. 5 The plan involved passing through neutral Belgium on the way to Paris. This caused Britain to enter the war because they were obligated to defend a neutral and independent Belgium under the 1839 Treaty of London.6 Britain also entered the war to aid its Triple Entente allies Russia and France, and because Britain and Germany had been in a naval arms race and Britain feared the affect of the German navy on its ports. To enter a war because of alliances and treaties is of questionable justification. It is not a just cause to attack a country from whom no wrong has been received. However, it is more justifiable to defend a country that has been attacked, as Russia and Britain did, than it is to help a country that is

4 “The Balkan Crises, 1903-191 1903-1914.” 4.” 5 “Schlieffen “Schlieffen Plan.” Plan.” 6 “Primary Documents: Treaty Treaty of London, 1839.” 1839.”

attacking another, as Germany did with Austria-Hungary. Also, Germany had no just reason to invade France; simply to knock France out of the war so Germany's resources could be concentrated on the Eastern Front is not a just cause. Another important component of  jus   jus ad bellum is proper authority and public declaration. Obviously, all the countries involved were sovereign states with the right to declare war. The reasons for going to war were made known to the public in all countries, but, the use of propaganda by all the states involved is troubling, and undermines the fact that the declarations of war were public. Though they knew otherwise, the leaders and military commanders promoted the belief that the war would be “over by Christmas” in order to make the war seem less serious and increase the number of enlistments. Also, there was a general lack of good reporting on the true nature of the war by the media, who were all too happy to self-censor themselves. themselves.7 While these facts do not technically violate the proper   jus ad bellum, they are troubling and worth noting. authority and declaration criterion of  jus

When the two remaining Allied powers entered the war, the belief in a quick and decisive war was gone; the German and French armies were already locked in a stalemate along the Western Front when Italy entered the war in 1915. Its main motive was to gain land from Austria on its northern border, certainly not a just cause. In the case of the United States, there has been much dispute. Some claim that the primary reason the U.S. went to war was to benefit its economy. On the other hand, the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic, as well as the Zimmermann telegram, in which the German chancellor entreated Mexico to attack the U.S., were enough just cause to enter the war. The seriousness of the threat is indicated by the fact that troops had previously been mobilized to 7 “Propaganda and World World War War One.”

the Mexican border in 1911 in case of an attack.8 Also, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's long insistence on official American neutrality in the European conflict shows that declaring war was indeed a last resort, as it was not for any of the European powers. The Allied powers may have been mostly just in entering the war, but the aggressors, the Central Powers, were not, and therefore the war in general was not begun justly. Since a just war is an all-ornothing affair, the failure of the war to meet the criteria of  jus   jus ad bellum alone makes it an unjust war. However, there were also many violations of  jus   jus in bello (justice in war) and  jus post bellum (justice after war) that make World War One even more unjust. The first World War was the first total war, involving all aspects of every participant's national ability to wage war. war. Civilians made more sacrifices and felt the effect of the war more than ever before. before. It was also different than any previous war because of its use of chemical weapons such as nerve gas, on both sides. When it was effective, the poison gas, used in the trenches on the front lines, caused horrendous casualties, and was especially a psychological psychological weapon. The use of chemical weapons is one important reason why the conduct of the war was unjust. Just war theory says that all international weapons treaties must be obeyed, and the use of chemical weapons had been outlawed by the Hague Convention of 1899,9 so their use in the war was unjust. Chemical weapons, however, caused a relatively small portion of the total casualties, and were not effectively effectively used by either side. The most important reason that World War War One does not meet the  jus in bello criteria of a just war is the number of civilian casualties it resulted in on both sides. 8 Guichet, Joseph P. P. “An Analysis Analysis of the Zimmermann Telegram.” Telegram.”