For example, if a country was to attack another country for no real profound reason, and then the attacked country decides to fight back it is then considered a just war because of reasonable justification. Just war represents the effort to both regulate and restrain the act of extent harm and weapons of war. The reasoning for these restraints and rules in the just war theory is to limit the war once it has officially started. An example of a just war is World War Two. Germany had invaded other Europeans Nations who were at peace and the reasoning for that invasion was for land.
The dogma in his literature has great influence from his experience in the Napoleonic wars and the French Revolution. Throughout his book, Clausewitz makes use of politics as the principal factor of war. In regards to his discourse, we understand war and politics as being interrelated which is dominant in his statement that military actions override political ends. To Clausewitz (2008) war is only a branch of political activity, and it is no sense autonomous since it does not suspend political intercourse or change it into something entirely different. This means that politics places itself above war and modify it to suit its needs, with Clausewitz arguments, it is difficult to think of war as something apart from politics.
The Reichstag Fire led to the Enabling Act because Hitler had managed to convince Hindenburg that it was a ‘communists uprising’. This manages Hitler to prove to Germany that communists were bad people and he would have get more votes, in the next elections. However, I also disagree with the statement ‘the Reichstag Fire more important than the Enabling Act in allowing Hitler to consolidate power’ because of other several reasons. Firstly, the Enabling Act made a Hitler a virtual dictator. Nobody could stop him, even Hindenburg.
Randy Kleeman POLS 208 Prof. LaRowe Reflective paper 2 Hamdi v Rumsfeld: Was This a Political Question? I feel that this is/should have been a political question left for the Executive Branch; but I understand the hard decision that consumed our upper chain with this case along with other enemy combatants/detainees that are in the correction system. Being privileged to hear a few cases that went through military tribunals down in GITMO, I feel the way our system gives enemy combatants/detainees the rights that we as Americans get preposterous. Hearing a case and keeping America safe during war is a job for the Executive branch alone, no cases should have been heard until the war was over. Habeas Corpus shouldn’t have been brought up here, being an American citizen you have this right along with due process, but once you fight on the side of the opposition you should renounce such rights.
This meant they let him increase Germany’s armed forces and put them in the Rhineland, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. They allowed him to take the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, believing that he would ultimately decide he had enough land. The policy did not have the desired affect; when Hitler knew he could get away with anything, he wanted more. Finally France and Britain realised he could not be appeased and they would need to take action against him. Had they done this earlier, there could have been a far less
There are two reasons as to why Hitler would not go to war with Germany. One would be that Hitler has violated the Treaty of Versailles and had worked very hard to make Germany strong again. He would not want to waste his resources by going to war with the West. The west was also already threatened and was more concerned with self-interest. For example, the British claimed that Germany was only marching into its own backyard when the remilitarization of Rhineland and did not support France.
It is not acceptable to go beyond legal, moral, and/or ethical boundaries when the nation is at a risky time of war, but only on certain conditions. Some issues discussing this are the neutralism of U.S., the Executive Order #9066 declared by FDR, and the decision to drop the bomb. These issues greatly impacted America’s standing in the world and history immensely. It was recorded into history for the mistakes that we did and the damage we caused. The U.S. struggled with each issue and did what they thought was right, even if damage was caused.
This was somewhat a political decision that the United States needed to make in support of her allies. The U.S needed to prioritize strategy in choosing how they would act after the bombing of Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s military success’s in Europe. The U.S had two options as to how they would proceed with military action. We knew if Russia collapsed that would allow Hitler to then fully focus his attention to defeating the British as well as helping out the Japanese which was a great ally of Hitler. The Japanese military success with the bombing of Pearl Harbor was obviously of great importance to the United States but helping our allies defeat Hitler took precedence after Winston Churchill asked the president Franklin D. Roosevelt for support in defeating Hitler.
Why did the cold war start? The cold war is the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union over ideologies, through other countries, without direct armed conflicts, which was first used by a English author and journalist called George Orwell at the end of The World War II. This essay is going to focus on main reasons for the beginning of the cold war. One major cause of the cold war was a distrust of the Soviets by the United States and the same distrust of the United States from the Soviet Union. Though the need to defeat the Germans had made USSR a partner in the Allied forces from 1941 onwards, Stalin had displayed the tendency that he wanted to dominate the world, and he used dictatorial powers and military powers towards people of his own country as well as others.
During the blitz, the government wanted to try and keep the morale and ‘blitz spirit’ because this was what Hitler was determined to destroy. They achieved this mainly through the Ministry of Information, whose main job was to see how the people of Britain were feeling, and then use censorship and propaganda to counter their mood. They used the Mass Observation team to overhear people’s everyday conversations and work out how they felt about certain aspects of the war. Then, instead of putting the problems right, they would launch campaigns to make everyone feel better about them or forget about them. For example, the Mass Observation team picked up that people didn’t feel safe using the government shelters.