There Are No Winners In A War, Only Losers. Discuss Essay, Research Paper

Nobody needs any further clarification to the meaning of war, everyone knows what war is. It is a physical conflict between two or more countries. World War 1, World War 2, The Vietnam War and The Gulf War, each of these are historical wars, they bring about widespread famine, misery, destruction and death, just like any other war would. When a war sweeps through a continent or country, nothing is left intact in its wake. If war brings about such negative effects then, why do countries still go to war? Since the beginning of time, Man has learnt to solve their problems and conflicts by the use of violence – cavemen using clubs and stones fighting against each other for possession of women, food and territory is an everyday affair.

Countries use war as a last resort when all else fails, it seems that by the use of military might, they hope to be able to suppress the weaker countries and make them conform. Some countries go to war when they do not like each other, when one country gets in the way of the other in territorial or economical conquest, it is time for someone to be obliterated. No one seems to be willing to give way or to accept resolutions as offered by third party nations. The phrase Action speaks louder than words does have its place here. What better way to solve a problem other than solving it yourself? Perhaps that is why the League of Nations or the now United Nations never seems to be able to stop all wars. War seems like a likely solution to inter-country conflicts.

When we talk about war, the two greatest wars that ever happened in history that will immediately come to one s mind are World War One (1914 1918) and World War Two (1935-1949). World War One was a war without parallel – its scale of destruction eclipsed all previous wars ever known to mankind, at least that was the case before World War Two. Austria-Hungary was not happy the way Serbia dealt with the murder of its Arch-duke and decided to take military action. It was a struggle between Europe’s great powers, to show each other s military might. Austria-Hungary just did not want to resolve the problems using peaceful means and just wanted to win Serbia in a physical conflict. The Allied Powers won after 4 years of bloodshed.

As they say, Man never learns from his mistakes. World War Two soon erupted in less than twenty years. It was a war of even great scale, with battlegrounds all over the globe. It was not only a power struggle between Europe s great powers but also Asian powers. This was truly an even greater war than World War One. Hitler wanted more land, resources and power to his country and people, so he went to war and took over what he wanted. In the end, the Allied Nations defeated him.

Apparently, by look at both World War One and World War Two, we can see that the Allied sides won both the wars. But at what cost, may I ask? By examining World War One statistics, the Allied Powers had casualty rates of about 22.1 million people while the Central Powers had casualty rates of only about 15.4 million people. Personally, I do not see the Allied Powers as winners, they might have won the war, but they have a very much higher (about 10 million!) casualty rating which should actually make them bigger losers than the Central Powers since the Central Powers lost lesser men in combat. No one wins, everybody loses, that s what I see. How can a country claim to be the winner when it has lost millions of precious lives of its citizens? How can a winner be a winner when he has annihilated millions of lives of his opposition?

When we look at World War Two, to prevent a long, bloody invasion of Japan and to end World War Two, President Truman coerced Japan into surrendering by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with two nuclear bombs, killing about 150,000 people and many more suffered from the effects of nuclear radiation if they are not dead. So the United States won the War against Japan, by killing 150,000 people? That is hardly an act of a winner, you are not a winner when you have just devastated two countries with nuclear bombs, taking away millions of lives of their citizens. Winning should not involve the taking of any lives, it is grossly unacceptable to claim that the war has been won by killing millions of lives of your opposition.

If the winners of wars are not the winners, then does it make the losers the winners? I do not think so. They have lost too. They have lost their civilians, their armies, their territories, their resources and their pride. The winners also suffer the same fate as the losers in a war, both have a large number of casualties and also suffer the same negative repercussions of war, such as social upheaval and economic disruptions. Nobody benefits from a war. Everyone loses. In any war, there will be casualties and penalties for both sides, the winners and losers , even if you are the winner, it is only superficial. The casualties are still there, that is a hard fact which no one can ignore.

Only when the day comes at the end of the war, when only one side suffers casualties and the negative effects of war, then we can truly identify between the winner and loser. When countries win a war, it just shows that they are better at fighting than their opponents. Since both sides have devastated each other, killed millions of lives of the citizens of the opposing countries, how can the winners and losers be defined? That is quite impossible! In a war, there are no winners, only losers. Losers who cannot resolve their conflicts and differences by peaceful means, losers who lost millions of lives and resources, losers who are losers always. Losers resort to war because they cannot resolve conflicts peacefully, winners do not go to arms, they solve conflicts diplomatically!