While the attack on Pearl Harbor was not mentioned explicitly, pepperlandgirl, I believe, feels that the attack was allowed to happen because converting to a war-time economy would bring the U.S. out of the Great Depression (I’m not trying to pur words in your mouth, pepper, I am merely stating what I see as your position - not trying to step on toes :)). Which, of course, it did.
MauveDog, you hit the nail on the head exactly. FDR wanted to go to war. War would have brought the nation out the The Great Depression. FDR’s New Deal was not succeeding. Therefore we wait for the oppurtune time to declare war. Which Japan so readily handed us. But I think if it didn’t happen when it did, FDR would have been forced to make something happen.
Now the burden of proof is on you. I've not heard any conclusive evidence that FDR allowed the United States Navy to lose a good chuck of the Pacific Fleet. We've got a lot of rumor and conspiracy theories but no real proof. Declaring War after an attack isn't what I call "waiting for an opportune time."
Marc
I didn’t say he allowed the US Navy to use a good portion of the fleet. I said he waited for the oppurtune time. If it hadn’t presented itself, (which it did) he would have been FORCED to make it happen. I didn’t say he called up Japan and asked them to bomb us. I didn’t say he taunted Japan into bombing us. I didn’t even imply he knew the Japanese were coming. But I DID imply that he may have been forced to do some of those things if the Japanese didn’t attack when they did.
LouisB – Not quite sure about your explanation of US involvement in WW2.
It’s my understanding that public opinion in the States was fairly equally divided about getting involved in another European war so shortly (21 years) after the horrors of WW1. Not only were memories of that debacle still fresh in people’s minds but this was also still the ‘Isolationist’ period.
WW2 began on September 3 1939 with the German invasion of Poland and Britain’s subsequent declaration of war on Hitler’s regime (in pursuance of the mutual protection Treaty between Poland and Britain – I think the French were also part of that Treaty and declared war the following day). Two years later, public opinion survey’s in the US still didn’t offer the President a mandate for involvement (although, I believe, he wanted the US to go in). Then Pearl Harbour happened and both Japan and Germany declared war on the States.
This lies at the heart of the theory that some people suggest i.e. that Pearl Harbour was a total surprise to the military but maybe not to everyone in Government.
I suppose the fact is we’ll never know but (with regard to the recurring economic theme in this thread), the States did emmerge from that war as the dominant world economic power.
London_Calling, when I say that the American public was solidly behind the war effort, I mean of course after the Pearl Harbor attack. Before that attack, as you point out, the American public wanted nothing to do with the European war. And due to our insular attitude about Asians, we believed the Japanese would not expand their Paciffic conquest mode to include us. As to what the Japanese were doing to the Chinese, I think the prevailing attitude was “so what? Its just a bunch of Gooks killing each other.” No offense intended.
Being sucker punched early on a Sunday morning really pissed the American public off. And when Germany promptly declared war on the U.S., I believe the attitude became one of “if they want a fight, by God we will give 'em one.”
So far I have seen nothing to dispute my theory regarding the actual reason behind war. Power.
Each poster can explain the reasons behind each individual conflict in detail and I would agree and disagree to the details of the start of the various conflicts disussed. I think though it is quite clear that behind all conflicts lurks the quest for power.
It’s been like this since the dawn of man kind.
By the way, I know many Asians who would dispute the start of WWII. The Japanese invaded China in 1936. Over here that was the start of WWII. But of course, in the West, history is written by Westerners who apparently feel that the life of a Chinaman is not the same as that of a Frenchman, and this dispite the fact that Americans, Europeans, Australians and New Zealanders actually died fighting with and for the Chinese during WWII.
Just pointing out an observation.
I think some of you are on the right track, but have not quite fleshed out the true underlying nature of war: it is far more specific than general economic reasons. War is made in order promote the financial well-being of the shoe and pants industry.
Think about it: when soliders are mobilized, they must have shoes and pants. Even Ho Chi Minh’s legendary shoes of old tires and string had to be made by somebody… somebody who gets paid. With money.
Someone mentioned the sinking of the Lucitania as an important turning point for American involvement in World War I. What did you find on that ship before it was sunk? Thousands and thousands of pairs of shoes and pants. The destruction of such an important resource could not go unpunished.
Furthermore, why is it that Switzerland and Sweden in this century have managed to maintain neutrality? I say it’s because shoe and pant technology and style have made particularly rapid advances since 1902 (the year Warrenton patented shoelaces with sealed ends, making it easy for shoes to be laced by the masses rather than by artisans or hermit-monks living in mountainous regions), leading the rest of the world to be essentially uninterested in clogs and leiderhosen.
The above points, I am sure you will agree, establish without a doubt that shoes and pants are a leading cause – nay, THE leading cause – for war. You just go deep enough and you will always find a reason for war relating to shoes and pants.
LouisB – point taken
NiceGuyJack Interesting view and you’re right that Westerner’s no little about the Japanese invasion of China beyond ‘Inn of the Sixth Happiness’. Which isn’t ideal.
Much was brewing in the years immediately before the German invasion of Poland. Aside from the aforementioned Asian war, Italy was at war in North East Africa and the Spanish civil war was a proving ground for Hitler’s new technology.
I am still thinking September 3 1939 was the moment things became global. Instead of being a regional conflict, Britain’s declaration made it a world war involving 2 hemispheres and 5 continent’s because of the resulting declaration’s of war that came in from the ‘Empire’ and other British held territories. Examples might include, India, Canada, Australia, various African countries, Caribbean Islands, Palestine and Singapore.
As to the origins of WW2 – I suspect they must lie within the reasons for Hitler’s rise to power. As a result of it’s unconditional surrender in 1918 and through the subsequent Versailles Peace Treaty, enormous retribution was taken on Germany. The resentment and high price extracted combined with the effects of the Depression – felt harder in Germany than possibly anywhere else – and the scene was set. Germany was ripe for exploitation by a radical who offered and delivered German’s self respect and economic progress.
Problem was, the radical turned out to be a psychopath bent on world domination who had a great spin doctor and a more than willing entourage.
Regarding the origins of all war. The common factors have unerringly included the absence of Democracy by the protagonist and the use of either or both of economic gain and historical grievance.
In my opinion, the only successful way to aviod war - and proven historically - is world-wide Democracy, freedom of expression and capitalism. If the potential ‘protagonist’ has freedom, political transparancy and trade, military aggression is extremely unlikely to occur against another similarly constituted country.
Trade = profit = a happy electorate = re-election. I still believe that is the essential dynamic.
I continue to stand by Spiritus on this. I think what applies to scientific studies also applies here: correlation does not mean causation. Just because economic forces are at work does not mean they always cause war.
The same can be said of power. Just because a person seeks a powerful political office does not mean they are necessarily power-hungry; they could be motivated by pure ideology. Similarly, I’d consider a MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) nuclear exchange scenario completely ideological–the reduction “better dead than red” means an end to all power, not the struggle for it.
I had a history professor who argued that once, but I’d consider that poor revisionist thinking. Japan v. China is not by any stretch of the imagination a world war. Britain v. Germany v. Poland v. USSR v. Finland fits the definition far better. If you’re going to play around with conventions why not call it World War 1912-1945? Since WWII was really an extension of the unsettled differences of WWI, WWI was a extension of the Balkan Wars, and there were sporadic conflicts in the 20’s and 30’s, you can technically view it as one big period of warfare. Or you can take the accepted historic conventions and divide them appropriately.
Assuming that land is the reason that all wars are fought begs the following question: why are ware fought about land? The answer is that a tremendous amount of wealth can be extracted from land. However, there are several preconditions: a somewhat stable population, sufficient arable/pasture land, and something of an agricultural infrastructure. Without these things, land has little value. You can’t reap much wealth from dead land, but you still have to protect it against others who want it. The investment is just not worth it.
If the above is reasonable, why did the nature of warfare shift around the beginning of the 19th century? Land was still pretty important, but decimating the opponent was much more. Sure, you might want to quibble with me about the details, but I’d still say that my argument largely holds. “Total war,” which involved the utter destruction of one’s adversary and his resources, became viable around the time of Napoleon’s levee en masse. The scorched earth defense, in which a defender destroys his own countryside in order to diminish the attacker’s advantage, also became an important tactic. So if war is all about the extraction of wealth from land, why would the attackers and the defenders both try to sabotage themselves by annihilating land?
Since WWII, the US has hardly been in a position to benefit economically from its numerous “police actions.” How much land would the US have been able to extract from Vietnamese soil? Maybe a big fat bundle of rice, if any had survived the napalm. You might say that the GW was all about oil…so why did Uncle Saddam fire his own refineries in the occupied territory? All that was left for us was a nice patch of dry desert. The Kuwaitis at least had to swallow a big ol economic pill in order to get their infrastructure back up to speed.
What’s the point of my rambling? I guess I’m just bored at work. But I do believe that wars appear to have a largely economic component after the fact. If you want to analyze the power relations between two states that go to war, it is never difficult to find economic factors. Seek and ye shall find. This totally teleological, and totally unreliable. It takes a lot more research and careful consideration to figure out why people fought wars at the time they did. Just because the profit motive is uber alles in our capitalist society does not mean that the same is true for all others throughout history.
MR
You do know that FDR didn't have the power to declare war, right? That power rest with our legislative branch of government. And it was in fact congress that declared war not the President.
Marc
And I didn’t say he declared war. Are you reading my posts?
Are you saying that even though FDR couldn’t declare war, he had nothing to do with it at all? He couldn’t have done something to force a confrontation?
pepperlandgirl:
I’m not sure that arguing this FDR point is necessary. If Nippon attacked America in an effort to control resources, which I believe is true, then this example supports your position, but I still think that the causation of war is too complex to be encompassed by short statements.
London Calling:
I do not think that it is true that democracies are never protagonists. Did the US not invade Mexico in 1846?
mrblue92:
I do not see your reasoning here. Geographicly the two examples seem about the same size. Why is Europe a better definition?
Maeglin:
Your post was inspirational, but I want to quibble with your explanation of total war. Limited war is an aberration. It occurs within a society or related societies. Total war is always possible.
Also, total war does not imply permanent destruction. The idea is to destroy the ability of an enemy to feed and equip himself. Crops and supplies are the main target. Civilians are a target because they produce other things that their armies need. Destruction of infrastructure is productive only if you are employing a raiding strategy. This is not to say that conquerors didn’t sometimes go too far such as in the Mongol destruction of the irrigation system of the Fertile Crescent.
Other than this small point, I think that your post was right on.
Welcome aBoard!
2sense – I’m not suggesting all wars since the French Revolution . It seems clear, though, that as two factors matured (capitalistic trade and democracy itself – particularly the party politic system), war’s between democratic countries are noticeable by their absence. This is life so there are few absolutes but look at the record –‘trade wars’ is as far as things almost always get.
I also believe that democracies rarely – if ever now - go to war as the protagonist against non-democratic countries unless trade is threatened. Presidents don’t get re-elected if the oil stops flowing and the world goes into economic recession. The President’s political party also doesn’t get re-elected if the war is seen as unjust and/or “none of our business”.
The new and very interesting development is war raged by an alliance of democratic countries in pursuit of the protection of human rights. The ‘alliance’ lends a spin doctored credibility even though in most cases it’s window dressing. The recent Balkan involvement of NATO was about regional instability threatening the economic well being of central Europe.
The Gulf War was an awkward one for politicians because Kuwait wasn’t democratic and it was difficult for the spinners to access information on human right’s abuses (in Kuwait but also in Iraq – always important to demonize the foe). Much emphasis was therefore placed on the just crusader like ‘alliance’ to put a we’re-all-in-this-together-so it-must-be-just spin on the involvement.
Maeglin “Since WWII, the US has hardly been in a position to benefit economically from its numerous “police actions.” How much land would the US have been able to extract from Vietnamese soil? Maybe a big fat bundle of rice, if any had survived the napalm. You might say that the GW was all about oil…so why did Uncle Saddam fire his own refineries in the occupied territory? All that was left for us was a nice patch of dry desert. The Kuwaitis at least had to swallow a big ol economic pill in order to get their infrastructure back up to speed.”
Sorry, but I cannot agree with this at all. The US - from Korea to Vietnam to the Middle East to the Gulf to Europe and everywhere in between - has been involved in “police actions” for only two (related) reasons.
(1) In the cold war period, to demonstrate to everyone it’s commitment to the protection of countries pursuing the free market route – trade (usually based on money the other country borrows from the democratic protector so they can buy the protectors goods and pay interest i.e. third world debt). It’s about protecting trade, lending money (and ensuring it comes back to you) and NOT protecting flowering democracies – the latter is window dressing for the electorate.
(2) Post Cold War, to ensure world-wide stability in the post communist world at a time when old frictions and the vacumn created by the absence of a strong external (Russian) influence allows for the potential rise of nasty little dictators. Again, it’s been about stability in trade and the markets.
Unlike any other era in human history, domination is now ** primarily** gained by economic flexing rather than military assertion. The States is the economic super power because it (first) nurtures - from European regeneration post WW2 to the Balkans - and then (second) protects, and is seen to protect, world-wide free markets.
I’d like to state a historical fact or two which support London Calling’s point: Never in the last two hundred years have democracies fought against each other. And never in the past two thousand years have two neighbouring, non-democratic countries NOT fought a war at some point. Look it up.
(Oh, and before anyone says something - this does not apply to civil wars.
And slaveowning nations cannot be considered democratic.)
You are wrong. Sorry. And if you take into accounts all the examples of democracies not actively fighting wars, but undermining democracies and replacing them with dictatorships, well then you’re really wrong. I’ll give a couple examples. The united states invasion of the phillipines. A democracy attacking another one. The invasion of Russia by th united states in 1918. The US invasion of Grenada. The falkland island war. Several examples in Africa, including South Africa’s invasion of lesotho. Colombia’s border war with Venezeula and several other countries. Israel’s invasion of Lebanon. As for two neighboring non-demcratic coutries not fighting a war in the last 2000 years. Of course if you stretch the timeline back far enough you can come up with whatever results you wish. However there are examples in the last 200 years of neighboring democratic countries not fighting each other.
Also why did Japan try to expand in the Pacific? Why economics. What did the U.S. get out of defeating Japan. Unlimited access to most of the pacific, lots of cheap rescources.
Well, Scratch, let’s see if I can answer your challenge:
Phillipines: I’m not sure which invasion you’re talking about. Didn’t the US conquer it from (non-democratic) Spain?
Russia: There was no Russian government in 1918. Just a whole bunch of Reds and Whites killing each other. There certainly wasn’t a Russain democracy AFTER 1918.
Grenada: If Granada was so democratic, then what were all those Cubans doing there?
Falklands: You are, of course, correct. The Military junta in power in Argentina were paragons of truth, justice and the South American way.
South Africa: See note on “Slavery”.
South America: A bit of history I’m not familiar with. Please excuse me of doubting the parlamentary freedom in that part of the world, at that time.
Lebanon: There has not been a real “government” in Lebanon since the PLO entered in '70 and the Syrians invaded a few years later. Trust me on this.
Any more? Cause I’m going to sleep soon.
P.S. I was not talking about undermining governments. I was talking about armed invasions. There’s a difference.
Oldscratch: “You are wrong. Sorry” .
Not so far, agree with each of Alessan’s riposte’s.
**Oldscratch: ** “As for two neighboring non-demcratic coutries not fighting a war in the last 2000 years. Of course if you stretch the timeline back far enough you can come up with whatever results you wish. However there are examples in the last 200 years of neighboring democratic countries not fighting each other”.
Can’t go back a whole lot further than 200 without negating the first principle of the argument i.e. democracy – the French Revolution ?
Point stills holds; Trade between democratic countries is, historically, the best way to maintain the peace because of the in built dynamic that says: the voting public want disposable income - not body bags – and if you screw up either you or your party won’t get re-elected. Dictators, Loonies and Communists are a threat to trade, that’s all there is. Anything else is spin.