A difficult question to answer and one that I cannot with any certainty say “yes” I would have tried to resolve the matter by any means other than war.
That said I would at least have recognised that the colonists had a right to determine their own future but then again I have to ask at what cost to them and England.
Difficult is putting it mildly
Agreed Ms Smith, but it’s the frigging politicians that start wars, the ordinary man in the street would much rather go down the pub on a Saturday night than put his life at risk on a battlefield
I disagree. Politicians can’t start a war unless there’s support for it. What if the average man can’t afford to go down the pub? And what if he feels it’s because of Canadian economic policy?
People are very quick to buy into a “yeah! Let’s bomb the fuck out of 'em!” mentality because:
it sounds quick and easy
they assume that it will work
it looks cool on Fox News…kind of like a real life version of SOCOM: Navy Seals
we Americans generally don’t have to worry about the bombs landing here
And, of course, the power thing is just a means to an end: sex. Even if we, as a species, haven’t maintained as tight a connection between those two things as other species have.
Morality led to the war, but it wasn’t what made the North decide that they had to duke it out. Regardless of whether Lincoln would have abolished slavery or not, the wind was still moving that way in the North and with greater representation in the Federal government the South was fearfull that such legislation would eventually be passed.
Certainly it didn’t hurt as a bonus justification for Northies, though.
Given that you declared that all wars, everywhere, were evil, despite probably some of them having done just as much good, and witout actually wanting to debate any of them or list any principles which would give rise to this conclusion, no, I don’t think he was jesting. I think you made a wild assertion which is totally illogical.
Perhaps part of the confusion is why you chose that war and only that war to be “excepted”. What was unique about WWII that no other war compares to it in your mind?
It was simultaneously fought by one nation to conquer Europe, and ended up ceding huge parts of the continent to a nation every bit as tyrannical as Hitler’s Germany. Churchill, IIRC, argued that the war was preventable (or at least could have been substantially reduced in scope) and should have been called “the unnecessary war”.
Most wars can be rationalized as being self-defense by one or both parties. If WWII can truly be justified, then you open the doors to justifying all kinds of wars.
James Fearon has the leading theory right now as to why we go to war. To say “can’t they just work it out?” relies on 3 assumptions.
1)leaders are making decisions based on the same information.
2)states can commit to a certain bargain.
3)the issue in question is divisible between the states.
The most important and compelling explanation of war is when the first assumption is shown to be false. This is when states possess private information and incentives to misrepresent it, leading to miscalculations of a state’s ability to win war and the war costs incurred by itself and its opponent.
Imagine splitting a dollar w/ a friend via bargaining or via war. You figure that there’s an 80% chance you’d win the war, so you’ll average 80 cents for all wars fought this way. But fighting a war would cost you 20 cents, so you only net 60. If the friend agrees that he only has a 20% chance of winning and his costs are only 10, he can only gain 10 cents by fighting the war. Therefore, there exists a bargaining range where it would be rational for you to accept a deal anywhere between 60-40 and 90-10. If you get less than 60 or he gets less than 10, you might as well fight a war.
The problem arises when you disagree with your chances. Maybe you BOTH think you have an 80% chance of winning the war. Then you won’t settle for less than 60 cents (80spoils-20cost) and he won’t settle for less than 70 (80spoils-10cost), and you’re at an impasse. The reason this disagreement arises is because states have private information (such as military size, missle ranges, etc) and incentives to misrepresent it (“I can’t tell you my battle plans, or it wouldn’t work anymore!”). Sometimes, disclosing information anyhow lacks credibility. You can’t just shout “We have a huge army!” and expect the guy to believe you. Remember North Korea’s nuclear tests? That was staging of this nature. They had to demonstrate it in order to be believable. This is costly though, and raises your 20-cent cost to 22 cents. Better to just keep it to yourself and fight the war, right?
I haven’t even touched upon issue indivisibility. Quickly, i.i. are situations where the dollar can’t be split (ever hear of a throne being shared by two kings? Me niether).
So there you have it. Private info, incentives to misrepresent it, and issue indivisibility are why war is irrational but still occurs. There’s larger proofs but this is the down and dirty. Reference Dr. James D. Fearon’s “Rationalist explanations for war” for more info.
