A good war, or bad peace? (Franklin)
May 26th, 2007 | Published in Morality, Quotes, War | 7 Comments
After much occasion to consider the folly and mischiefs of a state of warfare, and the little or no advantage obtained even by those nations who have conducted it with the most success, I have been apt to think that there has never been, nor ever will be, any such thing as a good war, or a bad peace.
–Benjamin Franklin, as quoted in H.W. Brands, The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin (2000), p. 620
May 26th, 2007 at 10:46 pm (#)
What do we say then about wars like WWII, fought against a clearly bad force? Would it have been a “good peace” if America had remained at peace rather than entering the fight against Hitler? Perhaps Franklin could not have foreseen, or at least did not forsee, this kind of war; or else what would he say?
May 29th, 2007 at 10:22 am (#)
Andrew,
Good question. Franklin wasn’t completely against war — he supported the American Revolution, for instance. But he still thought war was horrible (which it is). So my guess is if war was the only way that could stop Hitler, then he would have supported it.
Josh
September 20th, 2007 at 5:03 pm (#)
I think the sense of Franklin’s statement is that war always entails death, destruction, and a multitude of occurrences that would be considered terrible and, usually unlawful in almost any other circumstances, so war must always be considered a failure of reason, law, morality, etc., even if ones argues that a particular war was somehow necessary or unavoidable. Incidentally, people sometimes point to the elimination of Hitler, or American slavery, or any of a host of other things that are represented to be due to “good” war, but the fact that something occurred in a particular manner in history does not mean that it was the best or even the only way in which this end could have been achieved. A conflict of interests or values does not automatically justify the horrible means of war: we just get too lazy or impatient or frightened or greedy to pursue better alternatives. Almost every culture at least gives lip service to the “Golden Rule,” yet in war we routinely and self-righteously do unto others what we should never want done to us or our loved ones.
February 25th, 2009 at 6:16 am (#)
I completely agree with Steven’s comment. A war may seem justifiable and the best solution but just because it is the easiest thing to turn to, it does not mean by any means that it is the best way of solving the problem
May 19th, 2010 at 8:22 am (#)
I agree with Steven and Nicky. Obviously, the elimination of Hitler, slavery, etc. is a wonderful thing; however, the Golden Rule should apply to everyone, all the time, and we do not regard it as such.
July 25th, 2011 at 9:15 am (#)
I’m pretty clear that Ben Franklin, who was no stranger to war in his time, believed that war was always and is always horrific. Folks who call WWII the great war or the just war are downPlaying the millions of lives lost. Our “allies” the Russians had exterminated 7M Ukranians … but they played a huge part in defeating Hitler. So you get to make some strange bedFellows, you get to create an untold number of widows and orphans, you get to see torture at epidemic levels. WWII was not a “good war” … it may have been a necessary war, but it was not a “good war”. I hear so many hawks today who say “we” need to get this person or “we” need to destroy that country. As the father of a Marine, I ask them which of their children, parents, siblings, or spouse will be going over there (and I tell them that their co-workers nephew does not count). WWII may (or may not) have been justified, but no war since was justified. Afghanistan possibly, but we created what became Alqueda by arming what was then the Muja Huddein to fight the Russians (back to that strange bedfellows comment). None of our last 10 presidents believed Ben’s comments here, folks who have been to war understand this. Folks who sit in front of American Idol and talk about all that “we” need to do, do not.
October 11th, 2011 at 1:14 pm (#)
Concerning WWII, many historians think that if the U.S. had not participated in World War I, WWII would not have happened. The reasoning is that without the U.S. efforts in World War I, it would have ended in a stalemate. Under those conditions Germany would not have been subjected to humiliation and would not have a reason to re-arm and start WWII. Of course, historians are unable to definitively prove that this would have been the outcome if the U.S. has not entered into World War I.
I would also add that anyone who has lived in the U.S. during their formative years has been subjected repeatedly assertions that aggressive war is necessary to maintain the American way of life. These unsupported assertions have resulted in a population that is unable to objectively evaluate the benefits and costs of war.