Ethics of World War II Military Personnel
Ethical theories of war primarily stem from the Christian tradition and writings of St. Augustine. Known as “just-war” theory, the doctrine attempts to answer two questions: When war is justified?; and, Once it is declared what limits should be placed on combat personnel? The first part of this theory, “just war” is from the Latin Jus ad bellum and outlines the conditions under which military force is justified, (Ethics 2003, 1). The second part of just war theory contains the Latin concept of Jus in bello, a prescription for conducting war in an ethical manner, (Ethics 2003, 1). The second component of just war theory is the focus of this research.
During World War II there were numerous actions taken by military personnel that are of highly questionable ethics. These include to name a few, the Holocaust, the Bataan Death March, the internment of Japanese citizens, and the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan by Allied forces. Military ethics attempts to determine if these and less spectacular but violent acts against others during World War II were necessary and/or ethical. In four works that relive the World War II experience from a variety of perspectives including a Japanese familiar with kamikaze forces, a former soldier of the Waffen-SS, a journalist, and an historian. The analysis of these works shows that war is a costly and violent business that often smashes our conventional concepts of ethical treatment of other human beings, including both military personnel and civilians.
Today’s military strategists are able to protect troops and civilians more than those of the past. Unlike World War I and World War II, today’s strategists don’t rely on poison gas or biological weapons to kill others due to international treaties ratified in the aftermath of the use of such weapons. Further, today’s strategists go to great pains to avoid the inadvertent death ...