Militarists, Friedrich Von Bernhardi, And A US Pacifism
After World war one, people were divided on the idea of the necessity of war. The destruction of cities and towns made people not want to have to fight for some ideas they didn’t even believe in. But even after all this some militarists in Europe still believed that war was a necessity of human nature. While looking at a source for a European militarists, Friedrich Von Bernhardi, and a U.S. Pacifist, William James, I will compare these two sources to how both authors define war, if they believe it's possible to eliminate war, and what they believe is the solution to fixing war is. I will also give my opinion on what I believe war’s purpose is. To begin with the topic of authors definition of war, both authors describe war differently. Bernhardi’s
…show more content…
Bernhardi doesn’t believe that even if it could we shouldn’t get rid of it. Bernhardi believes that war is a biological necessity and that if we were to get rid of war, it would cause worldwide unhealthy development. In his eyes, war is a good teacher by saying that we wouldn’t learn as humans if we didn’t have war to show us our mistakes. He views war as a competition which this competition creates the strongest group of people. When nations go to war they throw everything they have at the other nation to show their strengths. Bernhardi even goes into Darwin’s theory to back up his ideas that war is survival of the fittest to persuade people that war is not such a bad thing. William James’ idea of eliminating war cannot be completely done away with but should be able to be minimized. He uses the example of the United States and our relationship with Great Britain. We’ve remained allies over a long period of time and continue to trade with them as a show of peaceful interaction. He explains that getting rid of war would be a fantasy of a utopian society. In this idea I would have to side with Bernhardi in that war makes the strongest individuals. I wouldn’t say that we should go picking fights with people but we shouldn’t back down if any nation or group is threatening our way of life. Even after this point we need to explore their ideas of combating
Bernhardi doesn’t believe that even if it could we shouldn’t get rid of it. Bernhardi believes that war is a biological necessity and that if we were to get rid of war, it would cause worldwide unhealthy development. In his eyes, war is a good teacher by saying that we wouldn’t learn as humans if we didn’t have war to show us our mistakes. He views war as a competition which this competition creates the strongest group of people. When nations go to war they throw everything they have at the other nation to show their strengths. Bernhardi even goes into Darwin’s theory to back up his ideas that war is survival of the fittest to persuade people that war is not such a bad thing. William James’ idea of eliminating war cannot be completely done away with but should be able to be minimized. He uses the example of the United States and our relationship with Great Britain. We’ve remained allies over a long period of time and continue to trade with them as a show of peaceful interaction. He explains that getting rid of war would be a fantasy of a utopian society. In this idea I would have to side with Bernhardi in that war makes the strongest individuals. I wouldn’t say that we should go picking fights with people but we shouldn’t back down if any nation or group is threatening our way of life. Even after this point we need to explore their ideas of combating