Paradox of Military Ethics
Mainly:
Ethical considerations in war are tragically paradoxical: the more ethically constrained military campaigns and operations are, the longer evil reigns. The opposite is likely true as well: the more brutal war is, the longer peace can prevail. The decisive victory at Chaeronea and at Carthage, and the failure to maintain the peace after WWI serve as a small sampling of this paradox. The prolific British strategist Colin Gray noted that, “among history’s many ironies, it would seem indisputable that efforts to control and limited war, or armaments, both in theory and in practice have tended to have the reverse effect of that principally intended.” It is simply the case, Gray continued, that “awful means need to be threatened or employed for the purpose of advancing desirable end-state policy goals.”
Notes
- The simple fact that someone is not shooting at you does not mean they don’t want to, or that they won’t if given half a chance. Peace is more than the absence of open conflict - [1]
- Analytical note: some say that 'Germany was humuliated after WWI' - therefore it started WW2. However, the more appropriate argument, citing the paradox of military ethics - appears to be that Germany was not punished sufficiently and henceforth it didn't think it lost, and its military capacity was not extinguished - [2]. History seems to be in support of the validity of Pershing's request for unambiguous loss to Germany, which was not granted in the armistice terms - which were lenient.