Pacifism and wars
Pubblicato da https://www.americacallsitaly.org/ 25 luglio 2026
Undoubtedly, we all want peace and we all abhor war; yet wars have always existed. They have always existed, and perhaps they always will.
How can this paradox be explained?
First of all, we modern Westerners are opposed to war, but war has not always been regarded as something horrible. Throughout history, it has often been considered one of the principal means of achieving greatness and power. We need only think of primitive and barbarian peoples, for whom warfare was the main occupation of men, such as the Huns, the Vikings, the Mongols, or even the Native Americans, who were engaged in continuous bloody conflicts among their tribes. But civilizations themselves also rose and flourished primarily through wars. Consider the great empires of antiquity—the Chinese, the Indians, and the early Mediterranean civilizations—and then the Greek Empire founded by Alexander the Great, and above all the Roman Empire, which, through centuries of almost uninterrupted warfare, unified the entire Mediterranean basin, the world as it was then known.
Unfortunately, we can say that civilization developed through wars, and not only in ancient times. The European colonial empires of the Age of Discovery and later of the nineteenth century followed the same pattern. Today, however, at least we Europeans reject war and desire peace.
If we believe peace is a good thing, then our world is better than that of the past. Yet, as we have said, wars continue.
The fundamental explanation is that peace requires everyone to agree, whereas war can begin with the decision of just one party. This also means that even those who do not want war must prepare and arm themselves for it. Indeed, according to the ancient Roman saying, if you want peace, you must prepare for war, because in this way a potential aggressor may be deterred.
In modern times, attempts have been made to establish the principle that whoever starts a war (the aggressor) commits an illegal act that the international community should condemn and, above all, prevent. But how can it prevent it except by going to war? Thus, the prohibition of war paradoxically requires war itself.
But apart from this contradiction, how can one distinguish between the aggressor and the victim?
Whenever we speak of aggression, borders, and states, we refer to the world as it exists at the present moment.
Yet throughout history, borders and states have constantly changed. For example, during our Italian Wars of Independence, we attacked Austria and took territories from it. The Jews drove the Arabs from lands they claimed as their own. The Greeks were expelled from southern Anatolia, where they had lived since the dawn of history. The Germans were expelled from the Sudetenland, and so on. Would it then be possible to return to the past? Should Native Americans perhaps reclaim the vast prairies by expelling the white settlers?
In essence, the world and its borders, as they currently exist, become untouchable under international law, but they are not untouchable in political reality.
The distinction between aggressor and victim seems to me simplistic and merely formal.
For example, during the Italian Wars of Independence, were we not the aggressors? Certainly we were, and yet we regard those events as just and glorious.
Today Iran (or rather its Islamic fundamentalist rulers) sees Israel as the forward outpost of the unbelieving West against the faithful and proclaims Jihad against the Great Satan and the Little Satan. Are the Americans and the Israelis therefore the aggressors?
In reality, whenever there is a conflict, what is considered right or wrong depends on the political standpoint from which one judges. Garibaldi's volunteers were pure heroes for liberals, but merely a band of brigands for supporters of the Bourbons (especially among the peasants).
People often speak of a "just peace," but justice depends on one's point of view. If a war exists, it is precisely because the two sides hold opposing interpretations of the facts.
For example, regarding the war in Ukraine, a just peace for Ukrainians (and their European supporters) would mean Russia's withdrawal and perhaps war reparations. For Russians, however, justice would mean the annexation of territories inhabited by Russian-speaking populations and Ukraine's neutrality, so that NATO would no longer constitute what they regard as an existential threat.
Similarly, Hamas and its supporters would consider the destruction of Israel to be just, viewing it as an occupying power and as the forward outpost of the infidels against the world of the faithful. Israelis and their Western supporters, on the other hand, would consider a just peace to require the full and sincere recognition of Israel's right to exist.
Likewise, the incorporation of Lombardy-Venetia into Austria appeared just to those who upheld the principle of legitimacy, whereas for the Italian patriots it was right that those territories should join the rest of Italy according to the principle of nationality.
In other words, what was considered just depended on the principle by which one judged—in this case, legitimacy or nationality.
I would replace the concept of a "just war" with that of a "necessary war." Certainly, if Israel is threatened in its very existence, it cannot but fight in order to avoid destruction. The question is not whether it is just or unjust, for that depends, as we have said, on the values one adopts, but on the fact that there may simply be no alternative.
Likewise, when confronted with Nazi Germany's attack, especially in the Slavic countries, there was no alternative but to fight in order to avoid subjugation.
During the Second World War, Britain and France declared war on Germany, which claimed to have "liberated" the Baltic Germans from Polish rule in Poland. Yet everyone, rightly, says that Germany was the aggressor.
Above all, I would say that moderation and a sense of reality are essential.
For example, it seems entirely evident to me that, under present circumstances, Israel cannot be destroyed. Why then continue with futile attacks such as those of October 7 and countless other terrorist attacks? It would be better simply to acknowledge that Israel exists.
Likewise, the war in Ukraine appears to be madness because it seems clear that neither side is capable of achieving victory. Why, then, not stop?
It seems to me that, once a war has begun and has caused such immense destruction and so many deaths, political leaders can justify those losses only through victory. Putin cannot admit that the operation he initiated, which has caused so many deaths, was useless; he must proclaim victory. The same reasoning applies to Ukraine.
In short, one must know how to lose as well as how to win.
By 1943 it was already clear that Germany had lost the war, yet the fighting continued, costing millions upon millions of lives in a conflict that had become futile.
The same happened with Japan, whose leaders threatened that millions of American soldiers would die if they attempted to invade the Japanese mainland, as had happened at Okinawa. The Americans responded by dropping the atomic bomb.
When Germany and Japan surrendered, the Americans helped them rebuild and allowed them to remain independent. Thus nationalism was defeated; they became allies, and war between them has never occurred again.