Peace In or Peace Out?

10/1/2012

Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace and those who could make a good peace would never have won the war. - Winston Churchill

What do you think Churchill meant? Do you agree or disagree with him, and in what ways? Do you believe sustained world peace is possible? Why or why not?

danielmott13@att.net

10/2/2012 11:43:01 am

Those who wage war and fight a war, can not get peace through other means. Creating peace by treaty or agreement, couldn't happen and the only way to make peace was to fight war. The other half of the quote states that then there are some people who can make peace through paper and "moral" ways without staging war. However, if they were to go into war they would lose and the more laid back approach would work better. There are two sides to the story, some can make peace through war only and one side can only make peace through other means, such as treaties or appeasement.
I agree, to disagree with Chruchill's quotation. While they're are some people with blood thirst and only want to go to war with a country there are also people who can do both. For example, Woodrow Wilson, U.S. President, at the end of World War 2 signed the Treaty of Versailles, but at the same time just ended a war between several nations that lapsed over many years. Two opposite ends of the spectrum but it was made possible.
Sustained world peace will NEVER be possible. Although we may want to think of a happier time with no wars or violence, its a fairy tale. International and domestic conflicts have been occurring since the beginning of time. You have the American Civil War, the Revolutionary War, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Korean War, unstability for centuries in most of Africa. Not to mention, slavery, the clash between New World explorers and Native Americans. Also, all the dynasties and rulers conquering Europe starting in the Medieval times and still continuing today. There are too many problems in the world, that have snowballed into a major issue, which makes war prevelant and peace non-existent. No government ideologies, religious beliefs, or any belief of that matter will congeal to one standard policy that represents the world. In fact, that's what makes the world turn. That's what makes it unique. That's what makes it so great to live on. The diversity of cultures, different races, and different beliefs from all different countries makes Earth, amazing. Yeah, so there is violence and non-stop anger and hatred, but there always will be. Unless someone can get into power and can move mountains, Heaven, and Earth... Nothing is going to change, by the means of constant war and hatred and then suddenly or even gradually making glorified world peace.

Mrs. E

10/2/2012 10:46:18 pm

Very comprehensive argument. Nice job.

Christina m

10/3/2012 08:58:50 am

Dan, you bring up a lot of good points. I agree with all the reasons you brought up about why world peace will never be possible.

Kristina Lacasse

10/3/2012 09:47:17 am

I agree with your thought of the diversity of the world, as you said, makes the world turn.

Shayne Fitol

10/3/2012 10:13:53 am

I agree that sustained world peace is simply a nice, happy thought that will never and can never happen. Like you said, it is a fairy tale. I also think that Woodrow Wilson was a very good example to use.

Danielle O

10/3/2012 01:44:59 pm

Dan Mott,
You make some awesome points, per usual. I really like how you brought up past wars to give us a better understanding of what you were saying. I especially liked your points on Woodrow Wilson. Overall great job. ;)

Haley Krivensky

10/3/2012 03:02:18 pm

I agree with what you said about a world of no wars or violence is a fairy tale. That's so true and you made a good point about all the wars that have already happened.

Victoria Marino

10/4/2012 07:06:32 am

Such a great response Dan. You hit a lot of major points and it was helpful how you brought up previous history events. I couldn't agree more with all of what you said.

Zach Antonio

10/4/2012 01:15:58 pm

I like the points you brought up about how there is always violence. I also like how you out your email in your name. Smooth moves Danny boy.

Bridget Borowy

10/4/2012 02:16:18 pm

I also agree with you Rob. You brought up a lot of valid points that are very considerable.

andrew lynch

10/2/2012 01:52:41 pm

What Winston means is war is the opposite of peace. Therefore, peace can not be insured by war, and those who are trying to make peace could not win a war, because they are going against peace in order to win the war. In a simpler sense, he is saying war and peace can not coexist. I agree with Winston completely. Almost everyone wants world peace, but everyone’s idea of living is different. In order for world peace to occur, everyone on the face of the planet would need to be completely happy with their lives, property, and religion. This sadly happen and probably never will happen. As far back as history can remember, war has been part of humanity. Wars over religious beliefs, land, and everything else you can think of. But as far as we know peace has never covered the whole world. I also feel that it is a natural human response to fight with one and other just to release tension from our bodies. If it was just peace everywhere, our bodies would never release this natural aggression that forms in us. Finally, in order for world peace to exist, we could only have one government controlling the entire world, or no government for that matter. If there are multiple governments in existence, they will argue over everything because they will all have different view points on situations, and that is how war starts. And if there is only one government then the people who are below the government will not like the feeling of being controlled so it sets up the possibility of a world wide revolution on one government. Last, if there are no governments, it will turn into a world of the strongest, smartest man wins, and the under dogs will live lives of poverty and suffering… no outcomes result in world peace. Its just human nature.

Mrs. E

10/2/2012 10:49:10 pm

I like how you mentioned war as a primal instinct. Much like the "two minutes of hate" in 1984 - this pent up aggression must be released in some way.

Trevor Haigh

10/3/2012 09:42:32 am

I like your point about government. Not even our small, relatively speaking, government can agree on anything. Imagine that being applied world wide. War would be inevitable.

Nick Casablanca

10/3/2012 01:58:31 pm

Awesome points Andrew. Really like how you stated it's a part of human nature. That this is just a part of life. I have to agree with you, it will always be hard to have peace when war will always be around.

Justin Leone

10/4/2012 08:23:21 am

You have some good points there Andrew. I agree with what you said.

Katie Mitch

10/4/2012 01:16:05 pm

I agree with you. I like how you brought up how one government would have to rule the world which is obviously not possible.

Brennen Diaz

10/2/2012 03:01:50 pm

I believe Churchill meant that a nation who is use to war can not tell when peace can be made and those who have not been in war can only make peace and do not know when to fight. They lose their dignity. These are two extremes of the ladder. I do agree with Winston, but we do not live in the same world as Churchill did in 1945. For example, the United States has been at war with "terrorism" for more than a decade now, and there has been no window for a peace treaty. Even after Osama Bin Laden was killed, and numerous other Al Qaeda operatives killed off and the Taliban out of Afghanistan and Saddam ousted from Iraq. The Middle East is an unstable region. In the 21st century, the enemy will be hard to win against, they are rogue and unpredictable. However, we are ceasing the fighting coming this summer and will have more military advisers than troops in the region. I really wish there could some day be world peace, but I am a realists and see how things are. There are so many cultures, religions, beliefs of different people. No one will ever truly be satisfied with compromises. And sadly, some people are evil, whether they were born that way or brainwashed. Unless, we all put aside our differences and unite with one another the possibility of world peace is slim, especially in my lifetime. However, I will still strive to see people's differences and accept their way of life and seek for myself peace with others.

Mrs. E

10/3/2012 02:32:14 am

I don't get tired of saying this to you....well said, Brennan.

Dan Mott

10/3/2012 11:03:57 pm

I totally agree with the fact that with all the differences, they're will be no comprimise for all. It's a shame, but it is true. If only... if only it was possible

Chris Faber

10/4/2012 10:26:20 am

I agree with every point you brought up. I especially agreed with your statement about the diversity of all people and how you said no one will ever truly be satisfied. Very true statement.

Richard Katrenya

10/4/2012 01:26:45 pm

You're completely right Brennen. The World is too diverse and because of that there would be too many conflicting opinions to where world peace would even be remotely possible. Heck, in the south, there are still people who believe that slavery is still okay, there will never be world peace with opinions like that still hanging around.

Amber Murray

10/2/2012 05:27:47 pm

My interpretation of what Churchill said is that the ones who can fight within a war or create some kind of rivalry cannot make any kind of peace let alone good peace. If someone fights then they probably don't know how to be kind to someone they dislike. As for the ones that create good peace they can create war, everyone can create war if they really want to. the ones who choose peace most likely won't want go create war. I agree and disagree with him because some people are actually very kind but if they don't like one person the chances are they aren't going to make peace with them. It will just be an ongoing war between the two, it may become a civil relationship but nothing more then that. As much as I would like to I believe that sustained world peace is not possible. As humans we all have our own views on things in life and everyone's opinion is completely different. The chances of getting the whole world to make peace and not argue about anything will never happen. Even if everyone can get to a stand point were it's just agree to disagree there will always be that one person who wants the drama and the war. There is little peace within the whole world so it would be kind of crazy for the whole world to be in peace. It would become a perfect place which isn't necessarily possible. The world is a great place but it is far from perfect.

Rob Costigan

10/3/2012 01:08:16 pm

Really interesting points Amber. I really liked your first three sentences. It can really give someone who doesn't understand the statement a whole new perspective:)

Trevor Haigh

10/3/2012 09:37:39 am

Winston Churchill is saying that people that win wars do so because they have a lot of experience with them. Therefore, they are at war often and have little to no experience with sustaining peace. The opposite is also true. People who can sustain peace rarely fight in war, and would most likely lose if forced to fight in a war.

So, can we have sustained world peace? No.
Humans, at their cores, are still animals. We still exhibit that animalistic instinct to fight all who oppose and threaten us. Once necessary for survival, this instinct has evolved to incorporate greed and jealousy. Instead of fighting specifically to survive, we fight for petty things, like money and power, which, in the grand scheme of things, are not worth obliterating entire populations.

Obviously, this instinct is more prominent in some individuals than others, but it's still there; it still exists. World peace does not exist because we don't want it to. In many people's eyes, there is too much to gain from others' loss for peace to be worth it.

Camille Glasow

10/3/2012 11:53:05 am

I also agree with Trevor that it is impossible to sustain world peace because it is human instinct to have conflict.

StevieMoho

10/4/2012 09:46:00 am

I completely agree with your first statement about countries not being used to one situation or the other.

Kristina Lacasse

10/3/2012 09:43:21 am

I believe that Churchill meant that people with nonviolent personalities will be able to control the peace, but wouldn’t be able to control war and fighting. This is unlike the more violent types of people that only know how to fight and believe it is the only way to solve problems. Churchill believes in the separation of the two groups.
I don’t agree with Churchill. A balance of war and peace are necessary for the world to be in order. This is like in real life in which people aren’t going to like everyone they meet and they aren’t going to hate everyone. There needs to be some kind of balance and change. People/ countries need to get their anger out in order to get passed the problem in war, but at some point they need to get pass the problem and have peace.
As far as world peace is concerned, I don’t believe it is possible unless we lived in a perfect utopia. To be realistic, we don’t. People are always going to a have differing opinions and this leads to bigger argument. Although this occurs, the differing opinions themselves keep the world in balance. The balance of war and peace keep the world from being chaos. If the people of the world, didn’t have these different opinions, the world would be like Oceania and in that world, worrying about this concept would be the least of our problems.

Amanda D

10/3/2012 03:36:19 pm

You are entirely correct when you say how people are always going to have different opinions. I believe 7 billion people nation wide is too many to formulate a general understandment and agreement. You also make an excellent comparrison to life with out opions and the book "1984". The last thing people would want is to live in a world voiceless. So the balance between taking a stand or remaining neutral is important.

Katheryn Byrnes

10/4/2012 11:26:20 am

I agree that it is hard for people to get along but at some point the fighting as to stop as too much fighting is only going to hurt the world more than help it.

Shayne Fitol

10/3/2012 11:13:07 am

For those who are good at fighting a war, that is what they know how to do. If they were to try and make peace, they would fail, as they would believe they could do better and achieve more through fighting. Those who are good at compromising and making peace would not be able to win a war, and would not have to win a war, because they would have attempted to make peace somewhere along the way before victory was attainable. This is what I believe Winston Churchill was saying. I understand this point of view and why someone might have it, and in many cases I believe this to be true. But I do not think this is always true. Dan Mott's example of Woodrow Wilson earlier is a great one. He did not want to get involved in the war, but once he did, he helped win it. I think that there are many people out there who would prefer to make peace, but when fighting is necessary, are very capable at winning. But in the situation of an entire war, most people who desperately want to make peace do not have the mindset for a long war, and are reluctant to fight if there is any hope for peace, and those who are good at making peace do not have to win the war, they just have to fight well enough for both sides to see that peace is the best option.
As for sustainable world peace, that will only occur in dreams, and maybe some utopian, starry-eyed fiction movies. There is just too much conflict, too much hatred, too much disagreement, too many differences for that to even be plausible. Even within our own country there is always violence. We are built on disagreements and arguments. It is how our government is set up. Democrats vs. Republicans. They don't agree on anything. We have gang violence, racial violence, religious violence; wealthy against the poor. There is violence at sporting events all the time. Besides those crazy soccer fans in Europe, Asia, pretty much everywhere except America, there is also violence at American sporting events. Just last year, a San Francisco Giants fan named Bryan Stow was critically injured after being attacked by two Los Angeles Dodgers fans after a Giants-Dodgers game. Even more, the Dodgers actually won the game, so why were they so angry? If we can't even make peace amongst people in our own country, how can we make peace throughout the entire world? There will always be people who just want to hurt others, want to be in control, want to be better than everyone else, and will go to extreme lengths to prove it.

Camille Glasow

10/3/2012 11:45:00 am

In this quote, Winston is saying that there are two groups of people. There are the ones that favor giving in to acquire peace, and those who will fight to achieve victory. Both sides have their disadvantages. It is human nature to want to live in a peaceful world but it is also instinct to rise above others and achieve victory by defeating another in war. I agree with this statement because in order to either win a war or make peace, one will have to make sacrifices. Making peace will cause one to give up some dignity because in doing so they're "giving up the fight". Winning a war may bring honor to the nation, and shine light upon them, but they will be viewed by other nations as combative and will never be allies with the nation they defeated. I do not believe it is possible to sustain world peace. Only in a perfect world would everyone be able to live in harmony with each other, and for no conflict to arise. If the world was peaceful, it would only be a matter of time before human nature took over, and a new war broke out.

Mrs. E

10/3/2012 12:09:38 pm

Camille, I love your point about sacrifices. Are men so prideful that they cannot "give in" for the sake of saving lives? They're too concerned about saving face, I suppose.

Meghan Giannettino

10/4/2012 01:02:50 pm

Camille I agree with that is human nature to want to live in a peaceful world but it is also instinct to rise above others and achieve victory by defeating another in war. Even as history shows it has never really worked out too great fighting.. I do not think we will ever learn.

Alyssa F

10/4/2012 03:34:27 pm

Great points! I agree with you

R. Costigan

10/3/2012 01:04:53 pm

I agree a lot with what Sir Winston Churchill said. Although I don't really want to, with the life the people of the U.S. have been living, it seems our country is at war with someone all the time, and there's nothing we can really do about it. I think this kind of follows up with the past blog we had about humans on the quest for power and authority. I think this statement can relate to any kind of "war" and "battle" in everyday life. I know when I played at the national championships in Dallas this summer, every match was a war, and every point was a battle. There are everyday battles with things like work and illnesses as well. Everyone has a passion for something or someone, and I believe everyone has a warrior side reserved for something they really love. But getting back to world peace, I do not think it is obtainable. The reason I say this is because the second we let our guns down and ask for peace and say we aren't going to fight anymore, another country will take advantage of us. Once again, it's all about status at this point, and that is why we will never acquire world peace. In order to stop war, I believe someone has to be on top, and everyone wants to be on top. I don't think war would end with everyone on the same level of power.

Kaitlyn Twombly

10/4/2012 09:04:42 am

Rob, I too agree with Churchill, even though I wish I didn't. You bring up great points about status and why we will never achieve world peace, which I also agree with.

Lauren Barry

10/4/2012 09:39:21 am

Rob, I have to agree that your point about countries wanting status and power is so true. Although it may be sad to say, competition between countries is what keeps them going sometimes.

Danielle O

10/3/2012 01:42:29 pm

I think that Churchill meant that people who spend their lives preaching about world peace and its benefits cannot put themselves in the shoes of a person who has spent their life promoting war and the benefits from that and fully understand what their thought process is. Now I'm not saying that their views can't eventually be beneficial to each other to some degree, but their both pretty ignorant to the other's views. Churchill, in my opinion, is implying that we need both types of people in this world in order to strive. Now, do I agree with him? Yes, I think that he is absolutely right to say that, and although he is making an extreme generalization it is a pretty accurate one. Our country has never been able to just strive off of war or peace, we need both in order to be balanced. For example: North Korea, they don't exactly promote world peace, but rather war and they have not been able to function in what would our country we consider to be an acceptable manner in a long time. Some people who promote war think that fighting in a war will help bring peace so it's not as though their thoughts are at totally different ends of the spectrum.

Nick Casablanca

10/3/2012 02:19:44 pm

Winston states in his quote that those who can win a war well rarely make good peace. That is because those who can't make peace have had a life filled with war. War is waged and fought by leaders who grew up and are influenced by war. It is all they have known and will mostly will ever know. When they try to make peace, they will not understand how make a permanent peace or even maintain a peace that can last for a good period of time. Winston states in his quote that those who can win a war well rarely make good peace. On the other hand, those who can make good peace can never fight a war. This is because people like this live lives opposite of those who can fight a war. They do not let emotions overcome them, they settle down and think of the best way to keep people happy. Unlike those who can fight a war, they let their emotions get the best of them sometimes and they wage war without considering the best interests of the people around them. Whether someone can fight wars well or keep peace among others, peace and war will come and go. I believe, after all the rambling I had just put out here, that they go hand in hand. At one point, you will get someone that can keep peace among other people around the world, and then you will get someone that wages war and goes out and fight because of whatever reason they have in their head. No matter what though, as I state again, I believe Winston Churchill describes a two-faced population of people of the world.

Dan k

10/4/2012 04:13:06 am

Although it took me a while to understand, I agree with what you are saying. People have their own opinions that conflict with others and let their emotions get the best of them. I feel like that in 1984 emotions and personal thinking were eliminated people have no choice anymore. That's why their always war in 1984 and not always war in the present day. Like you were saying some leaders are able to keep peace and others can not

Haley Krivensky

10/3/2012 02:57:51 pm

In this quote, Winston Churchill is saying that the people who are in power in this world, fall into one of two groups. One group are the people who fight for what they want/need no matter what. They are unstoppable, destructive, and will go to war without question. They will go to all lengths to accomplish something and to most importantly gain more power. The other group are those who do not favor war, and are more for appeasements and/or treaties. They are better at negotiating problems than waging wars, and are ultimately afraid of war. I do agree to some extent, there are rulers/presidents/dictators etc that fall into one of these two groups. However, I do not think that all people in power are one or the other. It is possible to accomplish and balance war time and peace time. I do not think it is possible to achieve world peace, though. It is almost impossible for humans to not be conflicted or competitive. Every country wants to be a super power, control the most land, have the most money or best economy. There have been countless wars in our history, and they will continue. It is inevitable.

Jess Fedak

10/4/2012 09:04:50 am

I agree with you that there are two different groups of people when it comes to war and peace. I also agree that war is inevitable.

Kara DeVito link

10/4/2012 09:54:52 am

I do agree, Haley, that there is a time for peace and a time for war. It all depends on the circumstance. I feel everyone should certainly have their own balance between war and peace in life.

A Capes

10/4/2012 03:25:50 pm

My favorite line here is about every country wanting to be a super power- I love this because it's so true. I definitely agree with this, even countries who are nowhere near "super power-ness" envy all other countries who are. And because of this, there will always be war.

Amanda D

10/3/2012 03:22:46 pm

When Churchill claims, "Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace," I think of an overpowering sense of stubbornness. If a group of people cannot reach a settlement over an innocent argument or even a controversy between countries, then they are asking for a war to prove them superior to another. Peace cannot come from war in the slightest amount. One country at war will always end up embracing more superity over another, deleting peace from a possible outcome. Furthermore, when Churchill says, "those who could make a good peace would never have won the war," I can only imagine this stands for the people who can win their argument verbally rather than physically. However, only to a certain extent. Their point can get across to as many people as necessary, yet the impact of it may be just a weak as the impact of war.

I agree in the sense that the outcome of war can never create peace. It can be devastating and impactful, but this type of emotion can only last so long. I believe we act the way we do out of spite and anger at the time, however when you recall the event you will realize how it has very little impact on your life today. So why do we repeatedly act out in this type of ration rather than resorting to a verbal defense? If we keep acting out in anger instead of a different approach, sustained peace will never be possible. Even if verbally settling a dispute was attempted, there are much too many people to please and to convince a dominate argument to. The factors and aspects needed to be taken into consideration about each country and ethnicity and their needs are much too complex to reach an agreement quickly, if at all. The smaller the group is to convince, the easier it is. A population of 7 billion people is certainly impossible to all end up on the same page about every problem. As beneficial as world peace would be, it is out of the question in toady's society.

Dan k

10/4/2012 04:04:52 am

I think that Winston Churchill was saying that no one person who strives on winning can every be satisfied enough to enjoy a time of peacefulness. I do agree with him. No one person who wins is ever satisfied from just beating another. They always have something to prove and want to be the best. World peace will never be possible. Their is so many people with different mindsets and goals on their life. They will conflict with other peoples' and normally lead to a form of hatred. In 1984, they have the closest thing to world peace that is possible since warfare is a result of peace in their nation. Since their is not many people that had their own opinions in their own mind, nationalism was high and minor conflicts were dissolved. World peace is only going to be a result of eliminating all conflicts. I say this because any small conflict will add up and could lead to fighting and eventually warfare. Winston is right and world peace is not possible with freedom and individual thoughts in existence.

Christina M

10/4/2012 06:46:53 am

In this quote Winston is simply stating that someone who is good at fighting/winning a war has a hard time making peace with others. A good example of someone like this is Hitler. Hitler was a strong and powerful dictator who took over most of Germany and some surrounding countries. Hitler was able to take away the rights and citizenship of Jews that lived in Germany. He was never able to maintain peace with his people or foreign countries because he was too worried about creating his image of the “perfect” race. That being said, I do agree with Winston’s theory that those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace and vice-versa. People are either too worried about winning or too worried about keeping everyone happy/peaceful. People who worry about both usually do not achieve either. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
There is no such thing as sustained world peace. There have always been international issues as well as domestic conflicts. This is part of human nature and has been occurring since history was first documented for example: slavery, segregation, the Civil War, the Holocaust, etc. No matter how hard people try to attain world peace, it will never happen.

Victoria Marino

10/4/2012 07:52:00 am

My interpretation of what Churchill meant was that there are two different sides of war. One side has people who are willing to sacrifice victory in order to achieve peace within countries. The other side has people they will go to great lengths in order to win war. They will destroy anything in their path which will lead to very violent ways to end a war. I agree with what he is saying because people who have their minds set on victory don’t care about peace with anyone else. They want to win and will do anything in order to achieve that title. That’s usually all it is anyway, a title. You risk peace and lives for a title of being a champion and winner. Then there are the people willing to give up a battle just to maintain peace. They believe it is more important to have peace than win a war. I don’t believe sustained world peace is possible because no country is ever at total peace with itself or other countries. There always seems to be little battles going on, whether they are small and happening within one country or they are large and involve many different countries. I would compare this to a human being. There are many times an individual is fighting mental battles with themselves. Deciphering right from wrong, good from bad, and so on. There are constant battles with one person whether it is with their own mind or with another person. You are never truly at peace, just like countries are never truly at peace.

Kaitlyn Carey

10/4/2012 12:00:52 pm

I agree with what you said about how the world can never be completely at peace.

Justin Leone

10/4/2012 08:23:09 am

I agree with Winston Churchill. However, I personally believe that Churchill is trying to get a certain point across. There are two types of people in this world,ones who will fight and ones who will not. People who have a violent mindset, would not be able to conceive peace and vice versa. And as long as there are different mindsets, there will always be war. Which brings me to one of Andrew's points. For there to be world peace, everyone would have to agree or settle on everything, which is virtuously impossible. Unless you had a strong dictator, brainwashed everyone world wide, and made things similar to 1984, world peace is an impossiblity. Although it would be great, I don't think it will happen. People will always disagree on almost everything, it is human nature.

Jeremiah Burr

10/4/2012 11:50:02 am

While I agree with what you say, i believe that even in 1984 there is still a lot of conflict and pain.

Tim Osborn

10/4/2012 12:01:55 pm

Even if you had a dictator that kept harsh standards for everyone, someone would want to still revolt. Most people have enough common sense to realize that there are better things in the world than what they are currently incountering.

Jess Fedak

10/4/2012 08:59:06 am

I believe that Churchill meant that people are either peaceful or they are aggressive. Some people will fight for what they believe and will not back down. Others are willing to negotiate and come to some kind of agreement. If you fight any sort of war in the first place, you will never make peace. If you do not fight and make peace, you will not win the war or disagreement. I agree that a violent fighter will never make complete peace. Peace and war are exact opposites and it is ironic that nations fight wars to gain peace. Sustained world peace is impossible. In a perfect world there would be no fighting and no war. But we are human and there will always be disagreements and war, it is inevitable. We will always have animalistic instincts to fight for what we want and it will always lead to violence, there will unfortunately never be world peace.

Kaitlyn Twombly

10/4/2012 09:01:27 am

To me, Winston Churchill is stating that there are two different types of people in this world. First, there are the ones who possess the qualities to fight a war, but not to make peace. And second, there are the ones who are the complete opposite... People who do not possess the qualities to fight a war, but are able to make good peace. In short, he means that people either do or don't possess the traits or characteristics to fight or make peace, and there is no in-between.

I do agree with Churchill in the sense that people can be categorized by this statement. In my opinion, every single person in this world can be categorized as either violent or peaceful, submissive or assertive, and so on, which is essentially what Churchill is stating in this quote.

Do I believe that sustained world peace is achievable? Absolutely not. As I have already stated, and Churchill's statement supports, there are two types of people in this world. At no point will there ever be solely peaceful or submissive people populating the earth. There will always be a violent and aggressive population, which is why world peace is simply unachievable.

Mrs. E

10/4/2012 10:12:24 am

Well said, Kaitlyn.

Alex Mardis

10/4/2012 12:53:12 pm

I wrote like exactly the same thing you did. I swear I didnt read this until after i wrote my response haha.

So obviously I agree with everything you said here.

Lauren Barry

10/4/2012 09:36:43 am

The meaning behind this quote is simply that we, as humans, are best at what we practice the most. When Churchill says “Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace…” he is saying that those who practice war the most, are obviously better at fighting than those countries that practice, for lack of a better word, silent peacemaking. On the contrary, he states “…those who could make a good peace would have never won the war.” In this statement, he is saying that those who practice that silent peacemaking obviously have less experience in war, which would cause them to have weaker armies, or whatever it may be. The purpose of this quote is to exemplify to people that you obviously have advantages in areas that you practice most, which would make sense as to why the countries that fight often win wars, and those who write peace lose in wars. I do have to agree with Winston Churchill’s statement, only because what he is saying is human nature. You cannot practice one thing and expect to get better at the opposite; you have to practice what you want. Although the diction of the quote may cause it to sound as though peace and war are bad, his quote is surprisingly accurate, just look at today’s world and the military status of each country. After considering the power of militaries across the world, the topic of world peace comes to thought. As sad as it may be, realistically, there is no chance for world peace. The idea of each country getting along with each other is unachievable, with each country based on its’ own morals and laws, it becomes almost mandatory for there to be confliction. Again, although it is sad, confliction around the world is important because generally speaking, it gives the people of the world something to live for, and be grateful to live where they do.

Mrs. Elbakry

10/4/2012 10:17:00 am

What an insightful way to put, Lauren. Thank you.

Meredith

10/4/2012 11:48:24 am

I totally agree!!

Michaela Ryan

10/4/2012 12:47:55 pm

It's interesting how you said that conflict can make people thankful that they live in their country, but it also gives people that don't live in a country they love the misery of knowing that they would be better off somewhere else.

Jackie Ortiz

10/4/2012 01:13:26 pm

I really liked how you ended your response. Nicely put!

Kara DeVito link

10/4/2012 09:51:59 am

I feel that Winston Churchill meant there are two kinds of people in the world: those who'd rather fight in life and those who'd rather keep the peace in life. He means that those two classifications are simply divided to extremes, and there really is no happy medium. In this quote, Churchill also leaves no real answer or bias, just simply stating a strong opinion. I do agree with him when he says those who can put up a fight have trouble finding peace, but I also believe it all depends on what the topic is. Some people would fight to keep freedom for our country, but others may want to keep peace between friendships. I feel like Churchill's statement was very general. I don't think it's possible to attain world peace. There are so many contradicting views from all different angles on all different topics. It's sad when we try being peaceful with other countries, yet we can't be peaceful with ourselves, especially in politics. If we can't get our own country to be peaceful, there is no way we could get the whole world to be.

StevieMoho

10/4/2012 09:53:08 am

What Churchill is saying is that a country cannot be good at keeping peace and fighting in war, it is either one or the other. That's like saying that someone is the peacemaker and a fighter. It just doesn't make sense. Countries who are good at fighting in wars are usually always in one war or another. On the flipside, countries who are often peaceful, tend to stay that way. You can't have both. If a country that has no experience with war, gets into one, they should probably use their peacekeeping methods and stay on the good side of all the countries. I completely agree with Churchill. There is no way countries can be good at peace and war. World peace, never gonna happen. You would like to think it is possible. It isn't. There is no way every country will be happy at the same time. A sad thing to think, but true nonetheless.

Kyle Blake

10/4/2012 12:25:24 pm

I agree with you, Steve, that it is either a country that keeps peace, or fights to the death.

Alyssa Ferreone

10/4/2012 10:08:53 am

I think that Churchill meant that people who try hard to win a war lose focus of what peace is, and people who achieve peace have never won anything. War zealots are always obsessing over war that they forget what it means to be at peace. I agree with him in the sense that peace is not an achievement of winning the war because you must have taken part in war to win. I believe that the formal Miss America answer to everything is "world peace", but I personally do not see how world peace would ever be sustained. I think that there always has to be certain powers that are stronger than others for society to exist. If every country was of the same amount of money and power then nothing would be functional. Everything now a days is about image and the USA has always been projected as the best country around, which I believe it is, and it is pride that leads countries to strive for success and power over the other countries. The competitive gene amongst nations will always exist, therefore, world peace will never be achieved.

Amber Murray

10/5/2012 01:13:45 am

I think you have a food point Alyssa! Miss America's always talk about world peace and how they would make that happen, when in reality world peace is almost impossible.

Chris Faber

10/4/2012 11:06:24 am

I believe Churchill is referring to two sides of a big equation. One side being power driven, and the other side being peace driven. Those capable of winning war are power driven and cannot achieve peace by any other means. Those capable of settling disagreement without use of war are peace driven and are less capable of winning or even being involved with war. As far as what decides where one may stand is determined by choice. It is your choice whether as to what approach you take.
I agree with Churchill's statement in regards that once someone knows they have the capability and experience of winning war, they obtain a hunger for more power and success. As a result they can rarely find a way to come to peace.
Sustained world peace in my eyes can never and will never happen. First of all, how can we talk about world peace if we can't even find peace within our own country? Not to mention the hundreds of other countries fighting for peace. Overall, world peace is truly unimaginable. There is just far too many problems in our world today.

Katheryn Byrnes

10/4/2012 11:23:51 am

Winston Churchill is saying that the wars are caused by the ones who do not know who to talk out there problems and go straight to weapons. The ones that make the peace with words or treaties have happier life's until the war makes will not negotiate.
World peace will not happen in the foreseeable future as much as I wish that it would. To have world peace all the war makers out there have to die and not spread there ideas on to their family members and followers. We have tried to make peace with the countries in the Middle East. That has always ended up in a war because the followers and war makers will not listen to what we have to say as they are clouded by all their blood thirst. Sometimes, the ones who want the war don't know anything other than war because that is what they were taught and have grown up with. They have never seen anything else. They don't know a different path. To get world peace these people have to be all dead or taught a different way. I am not making excuses for all the endless fighting and war but explaining why world peace is extremely hard to get but necessary to save thousands of life's.

Jeremiah Burr

10/4/2012 11:44:42 am

I think that Churchill means that the skills for someone who can win a war will not help during peace and that the skills to maintain a prosperous peace will not win a war. These sets of skills breed different types of people and they are often opposites of each other. During the Dark Night Rises, Commissioner Gordan was going to be replaced because he kept acting like they were at war during a time of peace. He couldn't adapt to the changes in his world and so he didn't fit in with the rest of society while they were in a time of peace. I agree with Mr. Churchill that the people who win wars cannot survive in a time of peace while the people who make a good and joyful peace do not help as much during the times of crisis and war. I feel that the world can have a sustained peace to a degree. I feel that there will always be conflicts and disagreements because people are so diverse, but I believe that we can have a time without any major conflicts or war for a sustained period. I also feel this would be highly improbable and even if it was achieved it would be even harder to sustain, though I think that it would be possible with the right leadership and unity throughout the world. In the current state of the world a prolonged peace is impossible without some major reformation in the way the world is run.

Mrs. Elbakry

10/4/2012 12:41:02 pm

Refreshingly optimistic response, "to a degree." It would certain,y be challenging, yet not utterly impossible.

Meredith

10/4/2012 11:47:35 am

I believe what Winston is saying is that people who fight wars have no experience with peace. Same goes to the people who promote and maintain peace; they are less likely to win a war (simply because that may not be in their nature). I agree with Winston. Some people are more comfortable with starting a war over something, while others take a more peaceful route. Unfortunately, many countries feel it is necessary to take the war route rather than the peaceful route. I don’t believe sustained world peace is possible. People and countries will always have differences. These differences turn into conflicts then into war. Sadly, people cannot jus accept differences. Instead a whole war is fought over two different ideas. I don’t think it’s because anyone enjoys fighting, I think it’s because it is easier to fight a war than strive for an unrealistic idea of world peace.

Tim Osborn

10/4/2012 11:57:28 am

I think Churchill meant that people who fight and like to fight don't know how to be peaceful, and people who are peaceful don't know how to fight. I do believe that he is accurate. Take the Middle East for example. For thousands of years they have been fighting each other over their religion. For the young kids growing up in these war torn areas, fighting is all they know. Humans are born nice and have events in their early lives that mold them into aggressive adults. Growing up in war areas will inevitably make them fight and follow their elders. There is no way world peace will ever be achieved. No matter where you go one person will always dislike someone else's opinion. A world with peace is like an unattainable love. It just isn’t possible.

Kaitlyn Carey

10/4/2012 12:01:55 pm

I agree with Churchill, that it takes two very different types of leaders to win a war, or keep peace. During a war, a good leader would have to quickly respond by any threats or attacks by their enemies in a way ensuring they would win, and not sacrifice their countries’ safety. However, to keep peace, both sides would have to find a way to compromise, and understand each other's needs instead of focusing all their efforts on winning over their enemy. Another difference in leading a country during a war is how the war could unite everyone for a common goal, focusing industry on manufacturing supplies and making the people support the war. However, the same leader who won a war may not know how to run a country and keep the peace. They would have to change the economic system, finding jobs for people who had worked for the government in some way during the war, take care of the people living in the country instead of relying on the feelings of patriotism and unity to keep them from becoming dissatisfied with the government. A leader who can win a war has to be a great strategist, focusing on what is important. However it takes much more than that to control a peaceful society, such as being able to find a compromise to help everyone, instead of just their own cause.
Because of this, I do not believe world peace is possible. Every leader would have to want to have peace at any cost, even if it was hurting the people in their countries, and still keep their citizens satisfied with how they led. I think that alone is very unlikely. In addition, there are so many reasons for conflict that any type of worldwide system of compromises would take away people's freedom. It could never be true peace if people were forced to give up their own cultures, religions, opinions, and views of the world just to prevent any conflict.

Michaela Ryan

10/4/2012 12:26:24 pm

I think that in this statement, Churchill is saying that there are two kinds of people; the ones that like conflict, and ones that don't. We all know at least one person who will start a fight or debate at every opportunity given, as well as one who avoids conflict at all costs. The fighters usually have conflict for the rest of their lives, and can never make a "good peace," they're just used to having conflict, it's become more of a lifestyle. The peacemakers never stand up for themselves or fight back, and consequently, never "win wars."
Both sides have their flaws, because both sides can never win- or in other words, achieve peace.

I do not believe that sustained world peace is possible. There will always be a fight for power, and with the fight for power comes success. No power- No success. In order to achieve peace, everyone in the entire earth would have to believe that every single being is equal. This is not valid or reasonable. There will always be someone competing against you for more power. That's what keeps you going. In the end, neither war or peace are the solution. I don't believe there is a solution. World Peace is unrealistic.

Alex Mardis

10/4/2012 12:49:43 pm

I believe that churchill is saying that there are essentially two types of people in this world. Ones who are agressive and would go to any means (war) to get what they believed was best for themselves or their country. On the other hand, there are the people who are passive in the sense that they would want to go with the flow and not disturb the natural order of things. I agree with Churchill. when it comes down to it every body can be split into those two categories. As for the question for sustainable world peace, I believe it is impossible. As long as politics and relegion remain in the picture, the world will never be at peace. No matter how much people argue, there is never going to be a set deffinition of what is the correct point of view. Like in school, I HATE talking about politics. Well I hate talking about politics with my friends at least. No one comes out as the winner, and the only outcome is bitterness.

andrew lynch

10/4/2012 02:00:37 pm

I liked how you said there are two types of people. Those who would go to any means to do what they think is right, and those who just go with the flow. As long as this holds true, there can never be world peace. As humans we all have our own personal opinions and beliefs, and this causes a majority of the conflict over the world. Until personal opinions no longer come into play, the world will never have peace.

Meghan Giannettino

10/4/2012 01:00:59 pm

I think Churchill means in the first part of the quote "Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace.." is saying that people who only know of war and violence don't know how to make peace, because that is all they ever know. If they try create peace would not make much of it. And probably would not know how to make peace. The Second part of the quote "those who could make a good peace would never have won the war." manes people who believe that fighting is never the answer would never want to go to war. They want peace for all. They would never have the ability to win a war with only using peace as a weapon. I agree with Churchill in a way that when in war just saying you want a no-violent fight and it's all going to be like peace is an unrealistic thing. Because the ones that do have the power to declare war are the ones that believe having complete control over others. In a violent way is the only way. Unfortunately peace comes after the war not always but in most cases. Like Peace treaties, is usually declared after a war but no one ever things about starting with the peace first. Will humanity ever learn from this, is sustained world peace possible. I would like to say yes but it will probably never happen. Mankind for as long as history dates back has always had battles and wars to solve differences. It is in our human nature to fight for what we believe in or want.

Katie Mitch

10/4/2012 01:09:44 pm

I agree with Churchill. People will always have different opinions. It is impossible for the entire world, let alone, one country, to agree on one point. Some people believe peace is the answer while some believe saying that there are two types of people in the world: negotiators and fighters. The negotiators strive for peace and try to find a solution to the problem. Negotiators are good at creating peace but in terms of war, they don't have the natural fight in them to destroy someone else to prove a point. Fighters are the type of people who use violence to solve their problems. They believe in destroying their opponents to solve problems while taking a more violent approach. I believe that this is the wrong path and will not create peace in the long run. With that being said I do not believe world peace is possible. In order for world peace everyone would have to come to an agreement which is not possible because everyone has their own beliefs about ending conflict.

Christina Buswell

10/4/2012 02:54:51 pm

I agree, it's nearly impossible to achieve world peace.

Jackie Ortiz

10/4/2012 01:11:23 pm

When I read this quote I think Churchill meant, those people who only know how to fight to reach an agreement will not ever be able to reach an agreement in any other means. They will always go for the hostile and defesive route. Whereas, people who are more peaceful will never win because they are too much of pushovers. In a sense, I do agree with him. However, I also don't believe war should be the first decision when trying to reach an agreement. I agree that angry and war loving people will remain the same until they reach a situation personally that requires them to change their mind. Likewise, I believe a push over wil remain a pushover until they reach their breaking point. Therefore, the ability to change is there but won't be needed until they reach a certain point. I don't think there will ever be world peace unfortunately. There are too many different types of people in our world to ever allow to allow that to happen. Stubborness is worldwide and people will never fully agree. However, the stubborness is also not allowing people to agree to disagree. That is why it will never hapen.

Richard Katrenya

10/4/2012 01:23:38 pm

War and peace are two sides of the same coin, you can't have one without the other; it is inevitable. What Mr. Churchill meant by his quote is exactly what he said, you can't create peace without war, and you can't create war without ever having peace, there is no middle ground.
I perfectly agree with what he is saying as well. Never once in the history of the United States has there been a war was that wasn't fought to bring peace, nor was there ever a time where when we were in peace that there wasn't someone or something jeopardizing that peace. For example, before 9/11 we were in the boom of the 90's and everyone was happy, but then the terrorists came and did what they did and disrupted that peace. Even before that, we were in peace before World War 2, but then Japan came along and disrupted that peace. In return, we fought back against Japan and Germany to try to restore peace.
World peace is inevitable, it is just the way human beings are. Going back to last week's topic about humans always trying to be better than one another, that topic directly correlates WHY world peace is impossible. If by some odd chance that a "Utopia" did exist, there is always going to be someone who wants more. Power corrupts people, so if the ruler of said utopia doesn't become corrupt by the end of his/ her reign, there is going to be somebody who takes over that is corrupt. And besides, how can America hope for world peace when when we can't even find peace with in our own country?

Zach Antonio

10/4/2012 01:24:42 pm

Churchill is right. If you're good at fighting, chances are you're not good at not fighting. That may sound weird, but I think you know what I mean. Political leaders can be great during wartime, but clueless in peacetime. I also believe that this can go beyond the political standpoint. During everyday life, a person can be a nobody. Just trying to get by. But sometimes, if you put them in a difficult circumstance, they are just marvelous. They can really accomplish a great act in a situation where most just wouldn't even be able to react. Now back to peace. Is sustained world peace possible? Of course not. We all talk about it, we all dream about it, and we all that it can't be done. "That's not true! If we work hard enough, and band together, we can stop the fighting!" No you can't. Someone somewhere will get cranky and start a fuss. Choose some topic and argue it. Then people will get mad at him, and BOOM. I just punched the guy to my left, and now my commander-in-chief has declared war. We all are fighters on the inside, and we will never be able to contain that part of us completely as the human race.

Bridget Borowy

10/4/2012 02:26:42 pm

Churchill meant that those who know how to fight a war with a sole purpose to win cannot make peace because they are only good at winning war not making peace. For those who are good at making peace, they are good at it because they would have never been able to win it physically. However, I disagree with Churchill. If a country wins a war, they may also make peace. If a country tries to make peace, they may also win a war. It does not mean that the peace or war has to endure. All war and peace are temporary. Is world peace sustainable? Absolutely not. The world is filled with too many power-hungry people. Humans will wage war for power, more land, more resources, more money, anything. Looking back in history, one can see that war is inevitable. War has been caused by the many differences in cultures as well. Religion, ethnicities, and more are all causes of war. These are also things out of our control. Everyone has individual thought and is allowed to believe what he or she wants to. This can never be taken away and will always cause differences between people or between countries. These are the types of things that cause a war, but they are also things that can never be controlled. Therefore, world peace is not sustainable. The world is far too large, and far too diverse. Conflict will always be an issue.

A Capes

10/4/2012 03:22:23 pm

This quote definitely isn't like the other discussion topics we've had before. At first glance, I was kind of confused about what exactly Churchill was saying. But I think the point he was trying to get across is that people who have an aggressive mindset and those who have the ability to fight in a war would not be able to be the peacemaker within a room full of arguing people; the second half of his quote being that people who tend to be the mediators in a situation would not be able to fill the shoes of a solder in combat. I definitely agree with Churchill with this statement, but with that said, I don't consider it a bad thing. I think we need both kinds of people in the world in order for it to run as it does (not that I support war, but...). Would you want someone with a calm "peaceful" personality ordered to bomb the villages of our opposing country at war? No, because that person would most likely refuse to do so anyway. Vice-versa, you wouldn't want to throw a highly disruptive and threatening person into a room of screaming young children to attempt to calm them down? Probably not (because the poor kids would probably get smacked... unless that's what you're going for). People who fight in war need to have the mindset to handle everything they're there to do and everything they see, and a person who takes a leadership role in a situation needs to be a people-person with patients. As much as world peace would be awesome, it is definitely not possible because of the many types of people that make up this planet.

Bryan Peterson

10/5/2012 07:03:10 am

There are several underlying meanings to this statement that Winston Churchill made. I absolutely believe ever word of what Churchill is saying. When he says that those can win a war can rarely make a good peace he is more talking about how hard it is to come to a peaceful resolution. When you are in a war and you win against your enemy your will always have something that you disagree on. Some may interpret that in an entirely different way. Winston could also be talking about if you are good at war and disagreements it is very difficult to be sufficient at peace as well; First of all because you make more enemies than friends. It makes it harder to have that battling reputation and come to a nice resolution knowing you are more willing to argue something. What Winston is talking about with those who could make a good peace would never have won the war is if you make a peace with someone you will be more likely to give in to someone’s needs or requirements. When you come to a peace you compromise so that both sides are happy. There is really no way to fully win because you have to give up something. I do not believe that sustained world peace is possible. That is because once people come to a peaceful resolution they have feelings that they can’t get out just so that each side stays happy. This can turn into anger and it will at some point no matter the circumstances. And those who can win a war well will make enemies causing more arguments and disagreements. This makes “sustained” peace impossible.

Comments are closed.

Peace In or Peace Out?

English 12 Honors

Archives

Categories