Jump to content

Do you want to help me...


Recommended Posts

...on an essay I need to write for school? I know that this isn't CMBB related, but I am unsure whether all the people who contribute to this forum also contribute to the General Discussion forum. So instead of risking it, I'll post here because I feel I will get better responses overall.

Anyway, using examples, I have to argue why wars are started by nations. We were given numerous possibilities we could argue, and I've narrowed it down to a few.

Right now, I'm planning that my thesis will be that nationalism is the prime cause of wars, though I'm also considering economics and incompetence of leadership.

So for those who are interested in helping a student (hopefully a bunch of ppl), please post your ideas for why wars are started. Please help explain using historical examples as well, which can range anywhere from the Napoleonic era to present.

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could also try Geoffrey Blainey's 'The Causes of War' which gives a survey of the reasons in chapters and a quick conclusion.

Personally I think it's almost always economics, though it can be political economy (ie. socialist vs capitalist; or post-1870 France vs Germany), and very occasionally stupidity (eg. France in 1870).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heinlen makes a compelling argument that most wars are the indirect result of population pressures, and gives numerous examples: the westward migration of tribes from Asia to Europe, the resource competition of the colonial era, and even the Crusades (as a means of sending off to distant lands a surfeit of landless and ambitious knights and nobles). Then there's Hitler's lebensraum ideology - a perceived need, however fictional, for room to expand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some good books on that topic,

Man, the State, and War, Kenneth N. Waltz

Arms and Influence, Thomas C. Schelling

War in the Modern Great Power System, 1495-1975, Jack S. Levy

The War Ledger, A.F.K. Organski and Jacek Kugler

although that last one gets very mathematical.

I'd say Man, the State, and War is the one for you to start with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would second the recommendation to take a look at Waltz's Man, the State, and War. Another excellent book on the topic is A Study of War by Quincy Wright.

Both authors boil down the causes of war to a small number (3 for Waltz, 4 for Wright) factors.

The first is man, or human nature. Underlying this argument are the notions that the natural condition of mankind is one of conflict and humans are innately aggressive. Supporters of this view point to evidence of prehistoric warfare to demonstrate that war has a long history. You could also classify poor leadership as a cause of war in this category. Note, however, that the statement that "poor" leadership causes war is a loaded one - some would argue that some wars are necessary and wise leaders are the ones who know which wars are necessary and which ones are not. Thus, when a leader decides to embark on a war, it may be wise leadership rather than poor leadership.

The second is the state, or society. Here the argument is that it is the coming together of people into social groups that produces war. One way that this causes war is when some groups control more resources, others control less, and conflict results when the ones with less try to get more (economics at its most fundamental). Another way is when groups begin to develop collective identities that emphasize their superiority to other groups (nationalism at its most crude), resulting in tension and ultimately conflict. Others argue that the particular type of state is important. Communists (remember them?) used to argue that the capitalist order was the cause of war. More recently, political scientists have claimed that democratic states do not go to war with each other.

Third is the international system. This line of reasoning takes the basic Hobbesian view of the state of nature and applies it to relations among states. It argues that because there is no overarching authority to enforce peace or order, states pursue what they perceive as their interests; conflict inevitably results.

Fourth (only Wright argues this, not Waltz) is technology. The basic notion here is that deadlier technology and more of it makes conflict, whether its accidental or intentional, more likely and increases the consequences once it happens. Supporters of arms control often make this point, either implicitly or explicitly.

Both Waltz and Wright argue that you have to consider all three or four factors when trying to explain the causes of war. However, Wright placed the development of the causes of war on a time line. He believed that human nature came first and was the cause of the earliest (prehistoric) wars. As societies developed, they also contributed to war. Next came the international system and finally technology.

Sorry to post such a lengthy screed but I have taught courses on this topic and it interests me greatly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iirc from one of my first history lessons in senior school, wars are started for usally 2 of these 3 things:

1 - Power

2 - Relgion

3 - Money

although i believe the teacher was referring more to the past but you can update this a little:

1 - Power: imperialism, polatics etc

2 - Relgion/Ideogogies

3 - Money/economy/raw materials etc

Prehaps that helps somewhat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The expansion of the US from its beginnings(literally) to about the end of the Hawaiian monarch. That is a very good example of a population becoming soo big that literally spilled into the surrounding territories and caused numerous wars with other nations(the Indian Nations) and countries(Mexico is the best example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economics. See Mein Kampf, Hitler's economic treatise why Germany must expand to the east to seek resources. In his mind expansion to the east was similar to the overseas colonies of UK and France. Germany could never acquire on overseas colonial empire, so she had to look east and colonize the Slavs. He certainly dressed it up with a thorough anti-semitism (i.e. nationalism), but the whole point in subjugating/eliminating these peoples was so that Germany could take their resources and prosper economically.

The American Civil War was certainly economic as well. The South seceded in order to preserve their slave based economy. Without their slaves, they feared collapse of their non-industrialized, agrarian economy. The South didn't fight for southern pride, or because they hated black people. They saw slaves as property (i.e. an economic resource) and the foundation of their economy.

The current war in Iraq? I don't know. That baffles the mind. Do the Sunnis and Shia fight out of nationalism/ethnic reasons, or are they fighting to see who gets control of Iraq's oil; to the winner gets the spoils? What is the U.S. doing there? Pursuing a national enemy or trying to pacify an economically vital region?

You can get more creative with your answer and say that national leaders take their countries into wars for economical reasons that benefit the wealthy, but use nationalistic reasons to motivate their lower-classes to fight and be soldiers despite not benefiting economically themselves. What are the self-interests and how do you compel people to fight when it's not in their self-interest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sixxkiller:

Lust for power or to deny power to someone else is the cause of war. All ideaology such as money, resources, expansion, nationalism, etc... are just bi-products.

A modern example (let's say post-Industrial Revolution) would be helpful for Cuirassier's essay.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Alsatian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sixxkiller:

Lust for power or to deny power to someone else is the cause of war. All ideaology such as money, resources, expansion, nationalism, etc... are just bi-products.

A modern example (let's say post-Industrial Revolution) would be helpful for Cuirassier's essay. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

Right now, I'm planning that my thesis will be that nationalism is the prime cause of wars, though I'm also considering economics and incompetence of leadership.

Depending on what definitions to use, there's some risk of this being a statement of the obvious. "War" is not normally used to mean merely violence, or even organised violence, but specifically violence between states (currently nation-states are more fashionable than than city-states). It's therefore hardly possible to have wars without nationalism, by definition. You could perhaps have fun discussing how "liberation wars" fit into this; I'd be tempted to say that these have an established nation-state on one side and an entity that aspires to become one on the other.

Likewise, economics is to some extent indispensible to warfare. Only after the invention of agriculture and the rise of city-dwelling ("civilization" in the literal sense) could societies generate sufficient surplus wealth (initally, food) to be able to spare effort for organized warfare.

It sounds as if your topic is focused narrowly on the proximate causes of individual wars, but it might be worth pointing out that national identity and a degree of economic success are necessary precursors to the whole idea of war.

You might be able to make a similar argument for incompetence in leadersip; don't forget to quote Hary Seldon/Isaac Asimov, "Violence is the last resort of the incompetent".

All the best,

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Modern examples...

Afghanistan- remove Taliban from power: Result. Puppet Government will still maybe less power than Taliban.

Iraq 1- Remove Iraq from Kuwait. Result. Success because of worldwide support.

Iraq 2-Remove Saddam. Success but power will shift after civil war

WWII- Remove Hirohito and Hitler from Power. Both havent been to war and had very little need to war due to improved economic conditions.

Vietnam- Fought to keep communists from taking over. Defeat, but the most stable region in SE Asia

Korea-See vietnam. Defeat, but South Korea is in a very good state even though constant threat from North and growing movement to once again be unified. I believe this will happen in my lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I would hardly term someone who comes to power in any country as incompetant. War isnt easily defined by one thing, but wars tend to improve economics and give the winner an even firmer grasp on control.

Imagine if Germany had won in the east. It would have had the resources to pretty much dominate the world economicly even with out invading the west. Invading America would have been harder to win than the SU due to the sorry state of its navy and the suppy nightmare it would have had. The ocean is far harder to supply from than 2000km battlelines, even if Germany could have come from South America, no way they could have established a foothold big enough to sustain operations long enough to break the industrial might.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to everyone who has contributed thus far.

First of all, the various book titles suggested appear interesting, and I may look into them. However, for this essay, my sources will mainly be the textbooks I have been provided and the internet.

I'm still thinking I will go with nationalism or economics, or maybe both.

Dook,

The breakdown of the arguments made by the authors you have listed has been very helpful and insightful. I'm thinking I will use the second argument provided (the state-ppl coming into social groups) as my basic thesis as to why wars are started. This argument may cover both nationalism and economics, which I see as the prime causes of war.

The third argument provided (no overarching authority to enforce peace) I find interesting, and something I never had thoughtfully considered before. However, I feel the developement of the state, or nationalism and economics, are the prime causes and will be easiest to support.

So now I need to get examples to prove this, and I see that some people have already provided some. Thanks again.

Just to let everyone know, the conflicts I will probably look at the most intensively are WWI, WWII, the Arab-Israeli wars, Franco-Prussian war and maybe the Napoleonic wars. I may add or remove wars from this list as I read about them and learn more.

So thanks again everyone for the replies. I am willing to further discuss the causes of war, but now I think I am primarly interested in finding evidence that proves the state, and thus nationalism and economics, is at the heart of conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cuirassier:

(snip)

So thanks again everyone for the replies. I am willing to further discuss the causes of war, but now I think I am primarly interested in finding evidence that proves the state, and thus nationalism and economics, is at the heart of conflict.

Ummm, don't you think it's a little premature to settle on your thesis and limit your research to only that evidence which supports your thesis? Can you explain to us exactly what level of organization qualifies as your theoretical "state"? Do tribes qualify? Confederations? What about different religious and/or economic and/or political segments of the population of a single state?

My point is that nationalism is a fairly recent phenomenon, while war is not. I'm interested in hearing your explanation of the causes of the War of the Roses or the English Civil War in terms of nationalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DaveH,

"Ummm, don't you think it's a little premature to settle on your thesis and limit your research to only that evidence which supports your thesis? Can you explain to us exactly what level of organization qualifies as your theoretical "state"? Do tribes qualify? Confederations? What about different religious and/or economic and/or political segments of the population of a single state?"

The essay is for a high-school class, not post-secondary, so it is not expected to have incredible depth. Our study of war only really encompasses 19th century to present.

The "states" I will be talking about will just simply be nation-states. Tribes therefore do not qualify.

So I guess more accurately, my essay must argue why wars have been started from 19th century to present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...