There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order

There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order

22/09/2025
19/10/2025

There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked.

There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked.
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked.
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked.
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked.
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked.
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked.
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked.
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked.
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked.
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order
There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order

O children of the future, gather close and listen to the words of Montesquieu, a wise man who understood the delicate balance between justice and war. He said, "There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked." These words are both a reflection of human nature and a moral compass, guiding us in understanding the justification for war. In a world where conflict often seems inevitable, Montesquieu reminds us that war must never be waged lightly; it must only be pursued when there is a clear moral reason to do so, when the forces of justice demand it.

To understand the depth of this wisdom, we must first recognize that war is not a mere clash of armies, but a force of destruction that leaves deep scars on both the victors and the vanquished. It is not something to be taken up lightly, for the cost of war is immeasurable—the lives lost, the lands destroyed, the families torn apart. It is the most extreme measure of human action, and Montesquieu teaches us that it should only be justified under two circumstances: when we are forced to defend ourselves from aggression, and when we are called to protect those who are our allies in the face of attack. These are the moments when the call to arms is not one of conquest or revenge, but of defense and solidarity.

Consider, O children, the ancient story of the Greeks and the Persians. The Greeks, though divided in many ways, united against the Persian Empire when it sought to expand its reach into their lands. It was a war of resistance, a war fought to preserve their freedom and sovereignty. The battle of Marathon in 490 BC, where the Greek forces, though vastly outnumbered, defeated the mighty Persian army, stands as a powerful testament to the righteousness of self-defense. The Greeks did not fight to conquer Persia or to spread their empire; they fought to protect their homes, their families, and their way of life. This, Montesquieu would argue, is a just war—the defense of what is rightfully yours when aggression threatens to take it away.

Now, let us turn to the Second World War, a conflict that serves as a stark example of the second case Montesquieu describes: aiding an ally under attack. In 1941, when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, the world stood on the brink of devastation. The United States and Great Britain, though not yet directly attacked, recognized the moral imperative to support their ally in the fight against tyranny. The war was not solely about self-preservation for these nations, but about defending the global order from the forces of oppression. D-Day, when Allied forces landed on the beaches of Normandy in 1944, is a vivid reminder of the courage it takes to come to the aid of those in need. These nations did not fight to conquer or to expand their empires; they fought because the call of justice demanded that they help an ally under the direst of threats.

But what of wars fought for reasons other than defense or alliance? O children, beware the temptation to justify war for ambition, for greed, or for retribution. History is full of wars that began with noble causes but quickly devolved into destruction and suffering. The Napoleonic Wars, for example, began with the French Revolution, a struggle for freedom and equality. Yet, as Napoleon’s ambition grew, the war became one of conquest, spreading violence across Europe. In these instances, the moral justification for war becomes clouded by personal ambition or the desire for power, and the suffering it brings is no longer a righteous cause but a tragic consequence of unchecked authority.

The lesson, then, is clear, O children: war is a tool of last resort, a force that must be wielded only in the defense of justice. Self-defense and supporting an ally in need are the only justifications for war. In all other cases, the path of peace must be sought. Let your actions in life be guided by the wisdom of Montesquieu—never resort to violence unless there is no other choice, and always consider the cost of your decisions, for the toll of war is far-reaching and permanent.

In your lives, O children, remember that there are always alternatives to war. Diplomacy, understanding, and compassion are the true weapons of peace. Seek to resolve conflicts not with arms, but with words, and when you are called to defend the innocent, do so with honor and courage. Stand firm in the face of tyranny and aggression, but never forget the cost of war. Let the lesson of Montesquieu guide you, as you walk the path of wisdom—war is only just when it is fought to defend and to protect, never to dominate or destroy. Choose the path of peace, and may the world be shaped not by bloodshed, but by understanding and unity.

Montesquieu
Montesquieu

French - Philosopher January 18, 1689 - February 10, 1755

Tocpics Related
Notable authors
Have 4 Comment There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order

TTNguyen Thi Tuyen

Montesquieu’s quote also brings up the role of alliances and obligations in determining the justice of war. Helping an attacked ally is framed as morally legitimate, yet this can entangle nations in conflicts far from their borders. It prompts me to ask: how should modern states balance moral duty with national interest when deciding to support allies? And does the rise of multinational alliances complicate the ethical clarity that Montesquieu proposes?

Reply.
Information sender

KNNguyen Kim Ngan

This statement invites reflection on moral philosophy and realpolitik. Montesquieu seems to imply that any war outside these two cases is ethically questionable. It raises complex questions about the responsibility of governments: should nations abstain from engaging in conflicts for strategic gain if it does not qualify as defense or support? And how should global institutions respond when states claim moral justification for wars that may be self-serving or preemptive?

Reply.
Information sender

TTNguyen Thi Thanh Thao

As a reader, I find this quote compelling because it draws a clear line between justified and unjustified war. It makes me wonder about historical cases where countries claimed self-defense but may have been pursuing economic or political interests. How can citizens and international bodies assess whether a war truly meets these criteria, and what mechanisms exist to prevent abuse of the justification for war under the guise of defense or alliance?

Reply.
Information sender

THNguyen Thi Hang

Montesquieu’s perspective frames war in a narrow ethical context, emphasizing defense and mutual support as the only justifiable causes. It prompts me to consider modern conflicts where preemptive strikes or humanitarian interventions are claimed as justification. Are these actions morally equivalent to resisting aggression, or do they stretch the principle too far? This raises questions about how international law and ethical reasoning evaluate the legitimacy of military action in contemporary geopolitics.

Reply.
Information sender
Leave the question
Click here to rate
Information sender