- This topic has 4 voices and 11 replies.
-
Posts
-
The subject contains the query. We know that wars are based on different particular reasons. Take your pick throughout history. What I'm trying to determine is what might be an overarching cause of war, rooted in men's souls. Perhaps it won't apply to every war, but nevertheless to many. Is there a single root cause? What is it?
Sort of like 'Zeb' Rawlings (George Peppard) told Jethro Stuart (Henry Fonda) in HTWWW re: Linus Rawlings' penchant for trouble…
'Now, why'd you get in such a fix? Do you like fightin' grizzlies?' He said, 'Well, not 'specially. I just wanted to go somewhere and the bear was there first.' I guess I just wanna go somewhere, too.
One tribe, ethnic group, religion, nation state, or other institution of your choice wants to impose on another that was there first (or that they are afraid will get there first). Overly simple, perhaps, but my story... and I'm sticking to it.
A desire for expansion may be one reason. Another may just be hubris or arrogance….we're conquering you because 1) we can or 2) we're better than you.Although I will concede that these reasons may fit ancient wars better than they do modern wars.
People generally start wars because they think they can win them and through war that they can get what they want. War is not now nor has it ever really been an option of first resort for states and governments. There is too much risk of losing.
So it sounds like the answers here are either a) desire to control another people or b) property rights/control. I would agree with this…desire of one group of people/dictator to assert its/his will over the people/land that is under the control of others. Interestingly, the legendary war on Troy seems to have been done for other reasons, but of course that story was part of an epic meant to illustrate certain universal truths. I don't think that revenge is a cause of war, though it could be; I can't think of any that actually started this way.
I don't think that revenge is a cause of war, though it could be; I can't think of any that actually started this way.
Revenge and the desire for revnge has played into many wars, I can think of two major wars inwhich revenge played a part, the two world wars of the twentieth century. The First World War was partly fought out of the French desire to regain the "Lost Provinces" and avenge their defeat of 1871. That is not the only or even the main reason but those considerations played a part in the French decision to go to war. World War II was started by Hitler in large part to avenge Germany's defeat in the WWI. The Nazis used the "Stab in the Back" theory from WWI in their rise to power and Hitler believed every word of it.
True; I guess I was thinking of revenge as a motive in situations where one nation invades another with the desire to conquer and then immediately pull out, rather than to occupy. Occupying a conquered land suggests a desire of asserting one's will on the defeated land/people, though I realize that revenge is one part of the equation as well.A war not based on revenge, but also not intended to occupy/control the conquered land: the Third Punic War in which the Romans steamrolled Carthage to the ground and I believe salted their fields so they could not rebuild. Rome wanted to do away with the Carthaginian threat once and for all, and that they did.
Hmm, I was thnking the third Punic War was based on revenge.
I can see why you might say that, and I suppose it could have figured into the decision as well on some level. I was thinking that the Romans simply had enough of these Punic Wars and wanted to eliminate Carthage once and for all, meaning the Third War would be one of pre-emptive defense. Could revenge have played a part? I suppose so, but didn't Rome already win out in the First and Second Punic Wars? Then what would there have been to avenge the third time around? Unfortunately, I only have survey knowledge of these wars.It is my contention that wars are not really based primarily on revenge, except perhaps those that took place in ancient days when honor and the like meant much more than they mean today. Acts of terrorism certainly seem to be based on revenge nowadays. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs too much here...but what was the rationale for attacking Afghanistan after 9-11? Yes, we may have wanted to "get back" at the people who struck us to avenge our losses (revenge), but I think more importantly we wanted to destroy the group(s) that did it so they could not do it again (not revenge in my mind, but self defense). Ok, so maybe revenge can be a significant influence in modern decisions to go to war, as long as they are accompanied by significant national interest motives. So I correct myself in the same post. ;D
I would submit that while Honor may not mean much to the average person, it is a concept alive and well within the military and throughout Conservative circles. I know plenty of people, me included, that would love to see duels revived. If nothing else, a duel would separate the men from the boys. Personal honor and dignity is the one thing that the state or government can NEVER take from me. If I can look myself in the mirror every night with a clear conscience then my honor is still intact, it has happened every night of my life so far and I don't look for it to change either..
I don't doubt what you say about honor and the military. Just for clarification…in my previous comment, I meant I don't think that large nations make major military decisions based on honor…at least not nowadays. Disputes over international honor are addressed at the diplomatic level.
