Hi guys,

I study a lot of history, and it seems a lot of wars started for a, from my rational point of view, strange (stupid?) reason.

For instance:

The U.s. civil war started because of the law on abolition of slavery (or were there more reasons???)

First WW started over the murder of succesor.

I know this is a bit simplified, and things were simmering in background, but in most cases things could have been solved with diplomacy or not?

How can leaders of a nation get its people to go to war for some strange or vague reason? And why do soldiers swallow those reasons? Can you really turn sensible people in to brainless followers of orders or are they brainless enough to start with???

The more I read about it, the more I loose faith in humanity

Kris

kris,

an interesting point but consider this,

if you look back throughout human history, the vast majority of wars have been caused by religion. the clash of idealogies etc has been devastating.

plus things have never been as simple as 'the murder of a successor' the causes are usually a tangled web of hostility and aggression going back many years

cheers

joe

Its just my personal opinion, but I believe the majority of wars have been for economic gain using a thin veneer of religion, ideology, principles and everything under the sun as a front.

When the first caveman got hold of his club to knock off his neighbour coming back from a hunt was probably because:

1. He was hungry
2. His neighbour was carrying a big chunk of yummy dinosaur steak.
3. He couldn't get anything during his hunting efforts

So it was pretty rational. Germany and Japan in the early 20th. century basically had outgrew themselves. My history's rusty but I believe WW I wasn't started because somebody killed somebody but rather the incident was the proverbial "last straw that broke the camel's back". Lord Montgomery (aka Field Marshal Monty) has an intresting treatise on why and how wars were fought from the Ancients until modern times. I have the book but I've forgotten the title. Sorry.

Just my more than 2 cents worth.

I'm kind of surprised that no one from the American south has jumped on your statement about the ACW being caused by a "law on abolition of slavery." Even nearly 150 years later that issue is STILL being debated.

There is a quote that cynics point to about how a nation goes to war.

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

I'm afraid that there is some truth the what "fatso" Herman has to say. That is NOT to say that no war is ever justified, just that politicians, or the media, can sway public opinion to the point that war is inevitable in some cases.

very good point rodger, and nice quote

cheers

joe

War - there has been war since man has been on this planet. War for food, religion, for territory, for plunder. There have been wars to enslave men and wars to set men free.

Today, the free world fights a war against an enemy who does not want our wealth, but rather our souls. The war of the terrorists is one that ranges across the globe and is fought in the mountains of Afghanistan to the streets of Baghdad. It is fought by soldiers, sailors’ airmen and marines and by warriors whose names are never published and whose deeds go un-honored.

So long as there are men, ideas, desires and zealous devotion to a religion there will be WAR.

Hi, Wars are started by those few at the very top of any country's political or economic class who, no matter how much treasure and power they amass, just don't seem to be able to get enough.

There are all kinds of excuses and reasons to go to war. All are basically B.S. when it comes right down to it. And the masses, the 'cannon fodder' of the world, seems to be so easily led and manipulated into doing all the fighting and dying for whatever 'patriotic cause' that a certain nation's elite happen to use at the moment.

And if any country happens to win enough wars and gain enough of the world's nature resources that they can use to manipulate their own peoples and other peoples of other nations, they become empires. Then the 'rot' really starts to set in and sonner or later, usually sooner, that nation falls by it's own inside rot and it's never-ending lust for more power and treasure of those very few at th top. Only in the end, to be replaced by another nation, whose fate is already preordained by the fates of mankind.

Wars used to be called 'the sport of kings,' now it's called 'the sport of big business.'

Take care, Sgirty

Some very interesting and thoguht provoking replies here, especially what Goering had to say.
Like it or not, war is part of human culture.

IMHO, the best reason to start a war was Menelaus' fight to get Helen back from Paris in Troy.

The ACW was primarily fought over the concept of States' Rights. In simple terms should we say "the United States of America IS located beween Canada and Mexico" or should it be "the United States of America ARE located beween Canada and Mexico"?
It was essentially a finalization of the concept of federalism. Slavery was the catalyst and was not brought into the politocal picture until January 1863 when the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves in the Confederate staes but not in the slave owning states that remained in the Union.
The philosophy fought over was whether having become part of the United States, a state had the right to seceed.



The assissination of Archduke Ferdinand was again a catalyst. WWI and its successor, WWII, were continuations of the ongoing territorial wars in which Europe had been engaged since the middle ages.
WWI gets more press, especially on this side of the pond, IMHO, because the US got involved. Unless you're are a serious student of European history over here you know little of the Crimean or Franco Prussian Wars. History classes rarely take note that the French and Indian War was the North American theatre of the Seven Years War or that the War of 1812 was a second front for England while she was engaged in the Napoleonic Wars.

If I may put in my 2 cents, Kris. There are various cicumstances that trigger wars. You've got to look at it from Political, Social, Economic, Cultral/Religious and even Military aspects. Lots of perspectives. You will see that one way or the other, they are all interconnected. These are what you call the underlying causes.

The thing that triggers a war is called the immediate cause. This is the culminating point as they say when all those undelying causes accumulate to a critical mass over time.

Like for example, WWI. When Princip assassinated the Archduke. That was the immediate cause of the war. But before that, you've got to see the underlying causes. Nationalism (in this case) is one of them. The Serbs are trying to free themselves from the hegemony of a foreign power. Then there are those alliances back then. A security blanket of sorts where partner nations are obliged to assist when conflict begins. Imperialism was still in vogue as great powers compete with one another in acquiring more territories around the world, as well as beefing up their military capability. Their brand of nationalism is quite different from the struggling Serbs. Theirs (feel free to correct me if i'm wrong) is "my country, right or wrong"

Another example I would give are the Arab-Israeli Wars. On several occasions, Israel made the first strike. Their motive is nothing imperialistic (though they did get the Golan Heights, Gaza and West Bank and for a time, the Sinai Peninsula), but out of survival. They were surrounded by neighbors bent on eradicating them from the face of the earth.

I could cite the example of WW2 but that would also be a rather long story.

I'm happy to see that even though we have a hobby that deals with aspects of war that we are not a bunch of war mongers.

I agree that wars will be around until there is nobody left to fight them and that they are a terrible waste--but thats part of human culture

Its the balance..you cant have peace with out war..good without bad...white without black. Hopefully we can rise above it , but ...

Sean

Hi, It's been my experience in this life that those who yell the loudest for a war, any war, in any country, are those who are the farthest away from it's physical presence. And usually those who are making a buck or two off of it somewhere along the line as well.

There are two reasons why the young of the various nations do most of the fighting and dying in any war. Number one is quite obvious, we older folks don't have the physical-ness for it, and two, older folks generally can't be brain-washing into believing all the crap and B.S. handed out by the military and their civlilian bosses about how to fight and more importantly, what they are fighting--and dying--for. Life is a great teacher and we older folks know that there is two different realities in the world. That which we are told about by our supposed 'superiors' and that which we learn through the hard lessons of daily living.

Once you been down the road with the latter we know the former is out and out pure B.S. This is most probably about the only good thing about getting older, being able to seperate the truth from the B.S. And since at least 75% of what we hear on a daily basis is pure B.S. it takes pretty much a life time of experience to be able to seperate the one from the other. But the older we get the easier it becomes.

Take care, Sgirty

sgirty,
Only 75% of stuff is BS? :-) Where do you live-- I wanna move. I feel like I'm around the 90% mark

Seriously, well put...I agree

Sean

The opposite side of the argument is if the European countries banded together and attacked Germany in 1939. 30 million people wouldn't have died. If the UN hada military force and not just a peacekeeping force 800 thousand Rwandan's(in 1994) and 3 million Congolese(or Zairean's?) could possibly have been saved. How about Sierra Leone and the massacres that happened there? 2 million Cambodians(or Kampucheans) could have been saved from Pol Pot. It seems to me that staying out of the Balkans helped the ethnic cleansing go along smoothly. That is with the older wiser heads staying out and hoping someone else will do something.
my 2 cents
brian

BSPRU,
I don't think any of us are saying that there are not times when people need to stand up agasint genocide or fight. But to actually be the one who start the fight is what I think the general topic is. You also can't say that if Germany was stopped in '39 that 30 millions people wouldn't have died...maybe more would have if an even larger war erupted ten years later BECAUSE you attacked in '39. Its like going back in time and changing one thing...you never know how things turn out.

I'm not supporting genocide in any way, shape, or form...I think the major problem in the world is that everybody wants to think that "it's not my problem" or its not happening next door, so I don't care. I don't know why this is...perhaps people are still too hung up on how different they are rather than how similar we all really are.

$0.02

Sean

My point is someone has to stand up and pick a fight (Start a war, police action,operation other than war). Or stand by and say we are sane people and what a tragedy it is happening over there. You can seek a political solution(wait till the bloodletting is over) and wait till it is safe for peacekeepers. If everybody is dead on the opposing tribe,religion, faction, it is pretty peaceful. Who said you have to be sane to be in charge? and people have pretty much a herd mentality when put in the right situations.
As been said before hindsight is 20/20. How many people in the U.S would like to go back to 6 December 1941. Would you attack the Japanese Imperial fleet or would you let them have the first move?
brian

But do you think the public drive for war would have been as strong if we attacked Japan, or we were "surprised" and attack?

I just think in matters of history, hindsight is NOT 20/20, we just can't know what WOULD have happened if x instead of y went down.

But I agree with your idea of picking a fight, but see, we wouldn't be picking a fight...those that started killing civilians and commit crimes against humainty, they started it, we would finish it.


Sean