Why are ALL wars fought?

Great Debates
81

**

Actually the American forces were parked in an areas claimed by both Mexico and the United States. Texas, and at this point the United States, claimed the land as far south as the Rio Grande as being theirs. Mexico didn’t recognize this as the border and thought that Texas ended a bit farther north at another river. As such the United States felt it was within their rights to have troops stationed anywhere north of the Rio Grande. Mexico disagreed and fired upon some soldiers in the disputed area. Thus we have the invasion of Mexico.

Marc

82

Because there is no concrete evidence, yes, I’m saying FDR didn’t contribute to the United States going to war. All of the evidence to the contrary is circumstantial at best. How do you think he forced a confrontation?

Marc

83

For the LAST TIME. He DID NOT force a confrontation. But he would have been FORCED too if SOMETHING didn’t happen. And SOMETHING did happen without HIS prodding. But he wanted to go to war, and he didn’t have support until Pearl Harbour was bombed. He didn’t need to force it. But I doubt he would have waited much longer before forcing somebody to do something. He WANTED to go to war.

84

I seem to recall that the Mexican War started just as MGibson related- As a border dispute. My recollection of the invasion of the Phillipines was that it occured just after the Spanish-American War. We helped the Filipinos rid themselves of the Spanish yoke, then tried to impose our own. I also remember that it cost a hell of a lot more American lives than casting Spain from the world stage had. Unfortunately, I do not know what type of government had been set up in the interm between white oppressors.

85

Spiritus

  1. Since when is a revolution or rebellion not interested in changing the present government of the land (land and/or territory)? I’ve already stated reasons for this and cited examples. I’m not going to repeat myself.

  2. ‘“Although we are hearing the name of Romans for the first time, we believe nevertheless that you are brave men, since the Clusines are imploring your assistance in their time of danger. Since you prefer to protect your allies against us by negotiation rather than by armed force, we on our side do not reject the peace you offer, on condition that the Clusines cede to us Gauls, who are in need of land, a portion of that territory which they possess to a greater extent than they can cultivate. On any other conditions peace cannot be granted. We presence, and if territory is refused us we shall fight, whilst you are still here, that you may report to those at home how far the Gauls surpass all other men in courage.” The Romans asked them what right they had to demand, under threat of war, territory from those who were its owners, and what business the Gauls had in Etruria. The haughty answer was returned that they carried their right in their weapons, and that everything belonged to the brave.’ - Livy, History of Rome, Vol I, Book 5

I don’t know how more succinctly my point can be made.

The battle that followed this “diplomatic missive” led to the creation of a Gaulish embassy, the contemptuous treatment of which… well, you obviously know the rest. First link in a chain of events, like the fallout over the Manchurian Crisis that led directly to Japan’s entry into WW2 (which I see has been mentioned a number of times here already)

  1. I admit I fudged this one a bit. I’m deferring a reply on this one till I can access to a reliable reference on Islam.

You are exactly correct when you say (albeit facetiously) we all live on land. Don’t underestimate a people’s attachment or desire to possess it. Going back to the embassy theme, sovereignty over land is so important that nations will even deem small portions of it to be foreign soil for the benefit of diplomats and dignitaries. This is not a new concept, nor is it just a diplomatic nicety. It goes back at least 1000 years to the creation of Scotland Yard for visiting Scottish kings.

There are many reasons for wanting it, eg ancestral/spiritual/religious homeland, resources on the land or land itself as resource. There are even cases of fighting over territory because you don’t want someone else to have it. The reasons change, but the object of desire remains the same. It may not necessarily be the reason why each individual foot-soldier takes up arms.

We do fight over air as it happens. It’s called airspace. Or alternatively No Fly Zones. Y’know, some nations will even shoot down civilian air transport in order to protect it. Admittedly this is a recent phenomenon, and it will be difficult for me to prove historically if you throw Chalons-sur-Marne or Bosworth Field at me. However there is some historical precedent: Cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos

People can also fight over the contents of the air without going to war, environmental groups taking on the industrial polluters and CFCs, Maori going to court to claim a portion of the airwaves for Maori language broadcasting under the Treaty of Waitangi.

You forgot to mention water. We drink the stuff, and believe it or not, we also fight over it in just the same territorial fashion or come damn close to blows over it as in the Cod War between Britain and Iceland. Over quarter of a million died at Gallipoli in WW1 just to gain control over a tiny little stretch of water called the Dardanelles.

No one lives on the Moon, but as it happens, someone felt the need to stick a flag in it, to lay claim to it like explorers of old, in the name of Pres and country.

Territory. Mine. Gimme.

86

The burden of proof is still on you. How would he have forced a war to happen without Pearl Harbor?

Marc

87

He would have forced a “Pearl Harbour” or something similar.
In every history book, every WW2 documentary, is clearly saying “FDR wanted to go to war”
FDR was NOT a stupid man, he knew what war would do the economy. At the beginning of the war did the U.S. know about the concentration camps? Probably not, because before Pearl Harbor was bombed, the American people didn’t even want to get involved. So, FDR would have thought of something to stir the American public and want them to get involved, even if it was just cheap propaganda. But he didn’t have to because along came the Japanese.

88

PLG - did you ever think that FDR just wanted to enter the war so he could help the British? He probably thought of the economy as a mere bonus.

89

Alessan – Think it’s important to remember what the situation would have bee if the Battle of Britain (fought over the summer of 1940) had been lost.

At that time, most of Africa, the Middle East and much of Asia was under the control of one or other of the warring parties. Had Britain lost then (avoided with the invaluable help of Empire airmen and misplaced Europeans who washed up on the shore – particularly the mad Polish fighter pilots), outside of the America’s and Australasia the world would have been controlled entirely by Fascists and Communists.

The States would have been hemmed in (shipping trade routes open to American vessels would have included the Panama Canal, Chesapeake Bay but not much else) and wouldn’t have be able to trade on it’s own terms, if at all. And that’s if it felt able to trade at all with the bad guys while people were filing into the gas chambers. Kind of like Cuba in reverse.

Left with either “trade on our terms” or “no thanks, you’re not nice people to do business with”.

I’m sure FDR wanted to help out for more fraternal reasons as well – ridding the world of the evil does make that particular war just – but I’m not sure he was willing to sacrifice 100,000’s of dead young men solely to help out a friend with memories of WW1 still so fresh.

90

Mustapha:

You simply repeat my point. The reason rebellions are fought is for rights of self-determination. You would subsume this under the heading “land” simply because people must live upon something. Revolutions are not, as a rule, fought over land. They are fought over rule. To call “land” the single cause of a rebellion is too radically reinterpret the motives of those involved.

You are correct. However, that quote addresses why the Gauls were in conflict with the Etruscans. It does not address why the Gauls attacked Rome. Land was not the issue, there. The Gauls did not attack Rome for land.

You still have not addressed Khwarizm and the Mongols.

Lest you misunderstand, I agree with you that land has often been the cause of wars. Men have fought to take, hold, or defend their lands for as long as history can trace. But to call every conflict a conflict caused by land is unwarranted. Yes, people fight over land. They also fight over other things.

91

Don’t forget, one of the reasons that Hannibal’s campaign in Italy failed was that the bean counters back in Carthage wouldn’t give him enough funds to do the job right.

92

I agree that the oligarchs of Carthage were foolish to hold back funds from the war, but I believe that the money would have been better spent on the navy. If Carthage could take back the sea then this advantage would have been far more valuable to Hannibal than reinforcements.

As I was pointing out earlier, Carthage was viewing the conflict with the Romans as an economic affair, they didn’t yet realise that they were fighting for their very existence.

93

Somebody who lurks, and would rather not register and post emailed this to me. I think he has a point.

94

Apologies if I have missed it, but I have not seen any real reference to “The Cold War” having actually been fought. I mean it was in effect the “Third World War” except it was plaayed out with safety catches on. I grew up next to the UK atomic bomber base and every day and night we heard them flying off to patrol the German border in readiness to strike. The USAF presence in the UK was at a peak. Listening posts were amassing huge amounts of intelligence waiting for some signal that said the USSR were about to strike.

Although the holocuast never happened it would seem that the West “Won” in the end. This is probably the finest example of a “War” being “Fought” to reap financial gains whilst reducing the “Enemy” to poverty. Since much of the USSR workforce and economy was devoted to the cold war efforts it must be that “Fighting” it solved a problem for them too, or at least they thought it would.

So am I right in thinking this HAS actually been fought and won or doesn’t it qualify…

95

**

And a lot of other people besides him thought that a war was inevitable.

**

The economy had been picking up so I doubt he wanted to go to war for economic reasons. You’ve offered no evidence that FDR wanted a war so badly he would have forced one.

Marc

96

What dimension are you talking about when you say the economy was picking up?
WWII pulled the US out of the Depression, and that was it. Not the New Deal.
I interviewed my Grandfather who lived through the Depression and he said that there was not a doubt in his mind that w/o the War, the Depression would have lasted longer. I trust him because he was there and he’s not a stupid man.

97

**

The same dimension as you I suppose.

**

I haven't given the New Deal credit for it.

Unemployment rates

1933 24.5%
1934 21.7%
1935 20.1%
1936 16.9%
1937 14.3%
1938 19%
1939 17.2%

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/timeline.htm
It appears as though we’d been improving since 1933 and stumbled in 1938. My contention that we were getting out of it still stands. WWII certainly sped up the process though and I won’t dispute that.

 I have no doubt that WWII shortened the length of the depression. But we were on our way out slowly.

Marc

98

2sense

Sorry for the delay; normally I don’t have time to post on weekends…

If you are to compare the Sino-Japanese War (?/36-12/41) to the WW2 European/North African/Atlantic theaters (9/39-12/41), you should notice:

  1. The geographic areas were considerably larger, with the Japanese mostly limited to Manchuria and the highly populated coastline of China, where the Germans fought across Poland, Norway, the Balkans, France and the Low Countries, the Atlantic, Libya, Egypt, and the vast expanses of the Soviet Union.

  2. Number of men involved and variety of nationalities, which is really why World War 1 & 2 are so called. Japan v. China just doesn’t qualify.

  3. The European portion of WW2 was an extension of WW1, and thus they fit together well as part of European history. Starting WW2 in '36 does not work well as part of that general sense of history since Japan had relatively little involvement in WW1.

If you were revise historical lines, it would seem more appropriate to separate the Pacific War (36-45) from WW2 (39-45), as they were fought separately in relatively distinct theaters.

99

2Sense

Thank you for the kind words. I don’t post over the weekend, and I have totally lost the thread of discussion. <s> And I think your opinions on total war are on target.

Rather than go back to that, though, I would rather bring up the issue again that some of the loudest determinists here haven’t touched. When you look for economic causes for war, you always find them. But that does not mean that the participants considered those causes primary.

First of all, pepperlandgirl has argued consistently that FDR wanted to go to war in order to stimulate the economy. This seems a little naive to me. FDR certainly was a smart man, and probably a bit cynical, too. But what people need to remember is that we had absolutely no guarantee of winning the war, and we certainly did not know whether our infrastructure would be shattered in the process.

Not every country that successfully prosecutes war benefits economically. History is full of examples: the thirty wars of Louis XIV, the wars against Napoleon, Carthage
(when it won), etc. Not only could we have lost, we could have also exacerbated the Depression. Look at Germany after WWI. Not a single battle was fought on German soil, and yet its economy was absolutely devastated before the reparations. Or look at France after WWI: the Maginot line says it all. Even in countries with strong military-industrial complexes, victory (or even war in general) does not guarantee economic stimulation. To argue that FDR would have thrown billions of dollars and a countless number of young men into the meat grinder to improve the economy is ghastly.

So that leaves the same question I hinted at unansered. Do we look for the causes of war in its outcome or do we examine the words and actions of the people who started it at the time? It’s pretty obvious where I stand.

Regards,
MR

100

**

I was talking about the supression of the Fillipino’s after Spain left.

**
Well, if there was no Russian government who signed the treaty of Brest-Livostk(sp?). There most certainly was a government, and the US sent troops in to undermine and destroy it.

**

  1. You were right about argentina. Sorry about that.
  2. Since what did apartheid equal slavery? Also, the invasion of lesotho happened after apartheid was abolished.

**

Forgive me, if when in a debate I do not “trust you on this”. Care to provide some proof?

The difference is slight. The only reason why the United States would covertly replace a democracy is because they don’t think they can get away with a full scale invasion.