FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Main causes of war in history





nepheus
Everybody knows that war began a long time ago, in accient of human. And we know that's inspensable. People fought against others to compete assets, properties. They want to be a biggest country. The shadow of empires and their wars only serve their aim - power, assets, respectation, rules, famous,... Shortly, all things satisfy their greed.

When time is going by, the improvement of human knowledge, ways to think, economy and technology has created a lot of purposes they want to fight to catch. Therefore, some countries want to enlarge their market, some want to exploit more resources. They create a war to solve their needs. And people who was patient, must fight for their freedom - too complex to talk about the freedom of one people, it's belong to tradion, culture...

And today, when we tell about war, we think out its causes: resources, religion, warlike temper.
There are many kinds of war, on many fields of society: politic, military affairs, economy... And what for? Just because they want to be one of poles of modern world system.
Following Marxism, the source of improvement is struggling, so when the Earth still contains people, a greedy species, Wars still explode.

Tell me your thought. THanks for reading.
takashiro
You're right. Smile
In fact most wars are caused by resources. Such as all the wars happened in China one century ago.
Drawingguy
Well, I think for modern wars especially, but of course, also for the wars of the past, nationalism has been a great, underlying factor for the start of wars.

Take WWI, for example, with the 'powderkeg' known as the Balkans, where the war began. In essence, that entire war started over nationalism; besides the growing pride each nation had in itself, and the belief that they were superior to the next, neither side wanted to back down, even if the fighting point was over a trivial assassination of an archduke.

Then with WWII, the aggressors showed clear, distinct nationalism. Germany wanted to conquer everything, and establish a master race, for goodness sakes. Japan too, wanted to display its prowess, and expanded over China.

I guess countries start developing an excessive amount of pride, thus breeding airs of superiority, and the thoughts that 'the neighboring lands should be mine/ours," which is what I think causes these wars.
HereticMonkey
Germany started WWII; the issue was partly nationalism, but it was mostly due to lack of resources. They had been pretty much screwed by the Treaty of Versailles, and their economy needed some sort of injection to deal with the depression. Japan just needed resources in order to become properly industrialized; although they had the ability to farm and had forests, they just didn't have metal (ironically, most of their iron and steel came from the US).

Also, I would debate nationalism in the first World War; although that could be debated as the original cause was nationalistic, the rest was just treaties taking effects...

Of course, even though I would point out that resources are the cause of any wars, keep in mind that it's not that hard to get people to get into them, especially younger sons who won't be getting inheritance...

HM
medievalman26
There are many factors that contribute, land, nationalistic feelings, resources, hatred, and tons more. Just look at the "war on terroism" that the US is embroiled in. Find a feeling or a thing you want/need and there is a reason for war.
MaxStirner
If I have understood the original question correctly, you are asking for an assessment (if not a hope) as to when humankind will have advanced beyond the necessity or willingness to wage war? Regrettably, I can't help you there, since I see little if any progress in that respect as in most others as well, perhaps even the opposite. If the following applies to today ...

Quote:
The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officials should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest {we} become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.


... then it is disheartening to find out that it was written by a Roman statesman, Marcus Tullius Cicero, some 2000 years ago. Sad
liljp617
Misinformation and misunderstandings.
HereticMonkey
MaxStirner wrote:

... then it is disheartening to find out that it was written by a Roman statesman, Marcus Tullius Cicero, some 2000 years ago. Sad


Why should that be disheartening? It's your typical 50% Water Glass: The passage you quoted should always be considered an ideal for good governing, and it should always be the goal. War is not the only way to fill the coffers, after all...

HM
Bryan_Bezzle
In American history, single events seem to have led us to enter these wars. Examples are the bombing of The Lusitania to enter WW1, Pearl Harbor to enter WW2, 9/11 to wage war on Iraq (terrorism)
Moonspider
Bryan_Bezzle wrote:
In American history, single events seem to have led us to enter these wars. Examples are the bombing of The Lusitania to enter WW1, Pearl Harbor to enter WW2, 9/11 to wage war on Iraq (terrorism)


The Lusitania sinking occurred in 1915, two years before the U.S. entered World War I. After that incident President Wilson vowed not to fight and requested that Germany stop attacking civilian vessels, which they did until 1917.

I believe that the Zimmerman Telegram (1917), along with the resumed unrestricted U-boat campaign the same year, played a much more important role in bringing the U.S. into the war than the Lusitania sinking.

The other examples while technically true, over simplify events in my opinion. Japanese-U.S. relations had been deteriorating long before December 7, 1941 (as had U.S.-German relations). And 9/11 was part of an ongoing campaign by Al-Qaeda. The U.S. had a legal right to go to war after the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa, or the bombing of the USS Cole. 9/11 just proved to be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

Respectfully,
M
Coen
War comes from miscommunication and jalousy. Alongside with that come the need for a better country or wars that are fought because of religious thoughts.
HereticMonkey
1)
Coen wrote:
War comes from miscommunication and jalousy. Alongside with that come the need for a better country or wars that are fought because of religious thoughts.


Could possibly be any more PC?

Wars were generally fought because of resources and sometimes glory, but rarely miscommunication; it's really hard to misunderstand, " I want your land, and you will give it to me or else!" As for religious thoughts, that has got to be one of the most repeated stupidity ever; even the Crusades were fought for land and wealth.

The Middle Ages had an interesting predicament: The eldest son inherited everything, the second was the back-up, and the third was usually a scholar or priest. However, you had a problem when it came to having six or more sons surviving to adulthood, knowing that they would inherit nothing. As such, you had to do something with them, and the usual solution was to send them off to war, where they would either get killed or expand the kingdom's limits. By the time of the Crusades, they were running out of land to fight for, due to the ability of castles to defend territory. Sending them to the Holy Land took care of a lot of problems.

Also, how do you explain religious wars in Japan or China? Yeesh...

2) Looking for events to cause wars is extremely simplistic. Especially when there were lots of other causes...

HM
rshanthakumar
Wars were always fought for power over other men. There was no other purpose to any war. There could be disguises which these people make use of. They could call religion, resource crunch or whatever bullshit you and I will believe.

Many people think it is the resources. No! this is not true! Simply because a person who does not have resources will not have resources to fight a war either. Only those guys who are rich can fight a war not poor guys. You will see this in every society. While the poor might have skirmishes here and there by and large they may not have time to fight wars. The reason is they will not have time even to earn their daily bread where will they find some to fight.

Rich nations will arm themselves and in their bid to become richer fight more wars. That is what is happening in the world. Tell me how many poor nations will fight another poor nation or a richer nation. If there are two poor nations fighting it means there are two rich nations who are getting proxied!
HereticMonkey
rshanthakumar wrote:

Many people think it is the resources. No! this is not true! Simply because a person who does not have resources will not have resources to fight a war either. Only those guys who are rich can fight a war not poor guys. You will see this in every society. While the poor might have skirmishes here and there by and large they may not have time to fight wars. The reason is they will not have time even to earn their daily bread where will they find some to fight.

Too logical....

1) Japan is a classic example of the lacking resources: They needed steel in order to become industrialized, and so they went to war in order to get those resources.

2) The poor are paid their daily bread in order to fight. And that ignores freedom fighters, such as in Latin America.

3) And that of course ignores going to war in order to free your country, or just for sheer glory...

HM
web_harman
well guys for me and people in my country... there always has been only one cause of any battle or war and that is women...
i know it sounds a bit crazy but yes it is......

so guy keep yourself away from women...

and htere is also one more saying that along iwth women ... train and bus are also somethings to be taken care of.... best of luck
rshanthakumar
HereticMonkey wrote:
rshanthakumar wrote:

Many people think it is the resources. No! this is not true! Simply because a person who does not have resources will not have resources to fight a war either. Only those guys who are rich can fight a war not poor guys. You will see this in every society. While the poor might have skirmishes here and there by and large they may not have time to fight wars. The reason is they will not have time even to earn their daily bread where will they find some to fight.

Too logical....

1) Japan is a classic example of the lacking resources: They needed steel in order to become industrialized, and so they went to war in order to get those resources.

2) The poor are paid their daily bread in order to fight. And that ignores freedom fighters, such as in Latin America.

3) And that of course ignores going to war in order to free your country, or just for sheer glory...

HM


True, Japan had a need. But when they identified the need, they had money to mobilise and fight for it and they could plan ahead and ensure that they 'forcefully' obtained some of these rights. War became the means by which they could continue to remain wealthy.

In Latin America and many of the African countries, poor are paid their daily bread for fighting the war (of whom?, of the rich). This happens in many Asian countries too. Hired soldiers! They fight for money. Kill for money. All this done for a person who can pay them! A rich guy! There is always a rich guy, sorry two rich guys, behind every war. You might have to look for them in every war and you will get them.

'Freeing your country' and the 'idea of nation' itself is the offshoot of rich guys. This includes glory was well. For a guy who is running for daily bread, glory has no meaning. There was nothing called a nation, three hundred years back. Rich guys got together and created nations to have their own fiefdoms. There is of course, suppression and oppression. Or fighting against such oppressions as slavery etc. This has been there and it continues to be there. Freedom is misnomer. It is not true! We believe nations are free! There is nothing like a free nation.
{name here}
Five things typically start war:
1) Need for Resources (Japan invasion of Korea during WWII)
2) Stupidity (World War I)
3) Religion (Crusades)
4) Jingoism (British colonisation)
5) Playing world policeman (Practically every American war since Korea)
There are many other reasons, but these seem to be the main reasons in history for starting wars. The only thing that could be added on, possibly, IMO, is revolutions.
black1029
war cant defined what is the main cause...many people are dying in war started by the man who want everything in this world... many country are suffering the terrible war against the war...
in other verse of the bible declare that war will be started. kingdom versus kingdom, country against country and the feminine will start until the judgement day will come...no end point of the war..it will continue even the government are trying to finish the war... it will be the first last cause of death.......
rshanthakumar
As civilisation progresses, people tend to become calm. The wars are becoming scarcer. As we progress there should be an ongoing reduction in war fare. It is only true that men over time will learn to coexist with others like him and with other animals and plant life too.

Let us only hope that this happens faster.
The-Ron-Man
You can't overlook the obvious answer "power." There are plenty of leaders who don't care about their country beyond its reflection on their own leadership.
rshanthakumar
{name here} wrote:
Five things typically start war:
1) Need for Resources (Japan invasion of Korea during WWII)
2) Stupidity (World War I)
3) Religion (Crusades)
4) Jingoism (British colonisation)
5) Playing world policeman (Practically every American war since Korea)
There are many other reasons, but these seem to be the main reasons in history for starting wars. The only thing that could be added on, possibly, IMO, is revolutions.

In our local history, there is a phrase which means something like this. Men fight for only three things. Land, money and women. These again are also dependent on the factor power. Though people give it different reasons, viz., religion, etc., the real reason is one of power over others and for the above listed three things.
Melacos
Well, this idea may seem pretty obvious, but nevertheless it's what I think lie at the foundation of especially the conflict-ridden evolution of mankind.

The thing I'm hinting at is the phaenomenon you could call the 'us vs. them'-rhetoric. All through history, man has sought to define himself up against others. Cautious of the unknown, and creating alliances exactly to fend himself from that uncertainty. What instantly comes to mind here, is a thing like skincolor - a simple visual means for contrast. But many less obvious features and ideas can form the basis of 'difference'. Think for example of the modern day use of a term like 'ethnicity'; this coverterm includes a vast amount of meanings and possible uses, and provides a fine example of the urge we possess for definition of human collectiveness;
Basically we can split this urge up into two separate units. First we've got the internal classification, which builds on the self-conscious group, that communicate their togetherness outwards. Whatever things are in common for the members of this collective(be that language, skincolor, spatial sharing or maybe nothing at all), is less important than their belief in that they share more than what they might differ. This is for example what we've seen throughout the years concerning the aspiring nationstates in Balkan.
Second there's the unit of external classification, or what is also called categorization. This is the definition of a collective, though not defined by the members themselves, but instead by whatever entity facing the collective. Here, obviously, whatever common traits are true of the collective, and if the collective sees itself as a such at all, doesn't really matter. The thing that matters is the facing actors generalized definition of the collective. This can be exampled in immigration, where the host might often tend to generalize on the arriving people.
Both of the described units of definition, needs both sender and reciever, and is really just a basic way of communicating alliance and fending off the unknown.

It is basically of interest to every single human being to be aware of everything contra-intuitive and therefore of everything that can not be explained or defined to satisfaction. Those are the things that might be of harm as we do not know how to react to the unknown.
On this background, this pattern is also true in human relations. Alliances with other human beings provide some safety in this regard, and at the same time categorization of others provides an explanation, and a simpler understanding.


In my opinion, this described principle of classification, and as stated before the 'us vs. them'-rhetoric, forms the basics of conflicts. It is an instinct on which a lot of what is termed typically 'human' is based upon. An instinct designed to make us aware of what seems different, and eventually fight it off.
ganesh
I think the three main causes of wars in history are:

(1) Clash of civilizations

(2) Religion and proselytizing

(3) Man's greed Smile
Poetsunited
main reason why ppl fight... Property in all its forms ( this includes women < in the 15th century and below :p cfr The Troian War )
And obviously different believes - religious believes or just thinking something else...

And last but not least, our desire to have as much power as possible and as much land :-p
Thamerwaste
all through history wars have been caused through people being too greedy, like the Maori land wasr of New Zealand it all started because the settling europeans wanted more land, the same with America and the American Indians.

Stone age people used to kill each other for rocks (even if thet had 1000's already)
Romans killed others for everything and got it (most of the time)
Hitler wanted land for his ever-growing empire
Henry VIII and all the Tudor monarchy waged war for more possetions

War is caused by greediness and if you think I am wrong read a book and you will be pleasently supprised Smile
deanhills
Closer to real time. What would the real reason have been for the invasion into Iraq? At the time when Iraq was invaded the West and more specifically Bush on their behalf claimed that it had been to search for weapons of mass destruction. I have never seen a report that any has been found, except Sadam, and a very pathetic Sadam.

Greed? Or protection of the world against mass destruction? And now here is the interesting question, who supplied Sadam with the weapons of self-destruction? During pre-Kuwait times Iraq had been completely outfitted by the Western world. They would have known exactly where all the weapons would have been. Just before the War started, one of the ex UN Inspectors pointed out this fact. I.e. that the only weapons of mass destruction had been those supplied by the West pre-Kuwait times, and would have been obsolete. An interesting book has been written on this topic appropriately named "Weapons of Mass Deception":

http://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Mass-Deception-Propaganda-Bushs/dp/1585422762

I still wonder what the exact reasons would have been for the invasion. Would it only have been greed, i.e. oil, or was it a combination of many things, more to do with self-interest than protection of the world against weapons of self-destruction?
fratellis
money, power, and public image.....thats as simple as i can say it
Flarkis
IMHO,

War is caused by laziness. We could find a new source of energy or we can invade somewhere that has oil. We could make peace talks with this country or we could invade them and crush their government. Most of the time I think its the easy way out.

Thats my 2 cents,
Markus
medievalman26
Another thought hit me<ices the spot> The biggest cause of war is people....can't have a good ol fashioned war without people now can you?
finweb
I agree, war is directly related to resources!
deanhills
I would say the biggest reason for war in these days are power and greed. Right now resources play a big role in who has the most power. Hence the overly interest in balance of power in the Middle East. Think when we were in Vietnam, that was also about balance of power during the time when China and Russia were aggressively extending their ideological borders and supplying weapons to North Vietnam in order to make the whole of Vietnam communist.

Then of course there is greed, and supply of armaments which sometimes becomes an end in itself. If you do not have wars, then armaments manufacturers cannot be in business. Would be an interesting study to see what the links are between armaments manufacturers and Government, as there always are, but much of it hidden. Also, who are receiving armaments as sometimes armaments manufacturers supply arms to both sides of the war. For example prior to the war in Kuwait (with Bush No. 1 in the seat) the West, primarily Europe England and France being big contributors, had been selling armaments big time to Iraq. And then after Kuwait, everyone stopped and all of a sudden they had to go and hunt for those very armaments to Iraq that the West had supplied Saddam Hussein with. They are still looking for those Smile Think they got renamed Weapons of Mass Destruction.
jcvincent75
nepheus wrote:
Everybody knows that war began a long time ago, in accient of human. And we know that's inspensable. People fought against others to compete assets, properties. They want to be a biggest country. The shadow of empires and their wars only serve their aim - power, assets, respectation, rules, famous,... Shortly, all things satisfy their greed.

When time is going by, the improvement of human knowledge, ways to think, economy and technology has created a lot of purposes they want to fight to catch. Therefore, some countries want to enlarge their market, some want to exploit more resources. They create a war to solve their needs. And people who was patient, must fight for their freedom - too complex to talk about the freedom of one people, it's belong to tradion, culture...

And today, when we tell about war, we think out its causes: resources, religion, warlike temper.
There are many kinds of war, on many fields of society: politic, military affairs, economy... And what for? Just because they want to be one of poles of modern world system.
Following Marxism, the source of improvement is struggling, so when the Earth still contains people, a greedy species, Wars still explode.


I agree with you. I also think that one of the major causes of wars are expansion of land area of a certain kingdom. Rulers wanted to increase the size of their empire/nation. I also think that some wars are caused by the so called "glory". That's what they say. The Spaniards came here in the Philippines because of three things: To spread Christianity, Glory, and Gold. After a few decades/centuries, Spanish-Filipino war broke out.

So glory is there and gold (resources) is there as well.

Cheers!
joostvane
Recources and the demand of power by crazy people that want world domination.
Glenn08
I think the main cause of war is the fear about the stranger. Ethymologically the stranger is the man (or woman) which is strange. the strange frighten people and the foreign people seems incomprehensible because different culture produce different interpretations about a same fact. Diplomaty and exchange permits to reduce the cause and the envy to make the war
ptfrances
In my mind the biggest reason has been religion and war of religion. It's alwas the case nowadays in a sense Wink
wetherell
Essentially I believe all wars were caused by two things. Greed and religion.
kevbailey
I would have to say that resources are one of the main causes of war these days, but also remember strategic wars. If a war is fought in one place, it may mean that it will not be fought in another spot. It may also be done to gain allies in one spot in the world where that is a valuable asset (see Vietnam, though it was failed, it was still attempted for those reasons). My thoughts. You're welcome to comment on it. Message me if you want.
vvforgs
Well, I think for modern wars especially, but of course, also for the wars of the past, nationalism has been a great, underlying factor for the start of wars.

Take WWI, for example, with the 'powderkeg' known as the Balkans, where the war began. In essence, that entire war started over nationalism; besides the growing pride each nation had in itself, and the belief that they were superior to the next, neither side wanted to back down, even if the fighting point was over a trivial assassination of an archduke.

Then with WWII, the aggressors showed clear, distinct nationalism. Germany wanted to conquer everything, and establish a master race, for goodness sakes. Japan too, wanted to display its prowess, and expanded over China.

I guess countries start developing an excessive amount of pride, thus breeding airs of superiority, and the thoughts that 'the neighboring lands should be mine/ours," which is what I think causes these wars.
Chinmoy
War is fought to establish supremacy and territory not resources. Resources are easy to channel in with diplomacy.
Moonspider
Chinmoy wrote:
War is fought to establish supremacy and territory not resources. Resources are easy to channel in with diplomacy.


I disagree with you there. Territorial value is based upon its resources or its strategic value as a route for resources. Would the Middle East be such a volatile region if not for the oil beneath its sands?

Respectfully,
M
eczeyes
It's always about economics...

You can see that religion, nationalism or supremacy is used to "justify" the motive to the general public, the way those in power fuel their masses to get approval to start a war. But in the end you can see it's always about resources.

The weapons of mass destruction were the last "justification" for war, and by that they got fear in the american people.

Alexander continued the construction of a greater Macedonia, started by his father Phillip II that wanted to secure Macedonian rule by uniting the greek city-states, and that became one of the greatest war campaigns in history. In the end, even when Alexander wanted more than just resources, glory and a vision of a greater world, the start of war was about resources.
poppat
War is always started by religion. Religion in itself is an evil way of pitting man against each other. Nationalism itself is a form of religion. Individuals in power believe that their country and way of life is better than someone elses. Belief is religion. Although I was brought up as a Christian I am now not of any recognised religion. My beliefs are my own and I don't pray to anything I can't see. Although I am against most religions in principle, I do believe that everybody has a right to believe in whatever they want and practice whatever religion they believe in as long as they don't force it on others. And this is where war comes into my post. People think that eveyone else should be like them and believe what they believe. Eventually things come to a head and war starts. Hitler's religion was that the Aryan race was the perfect race.

poppat
Related topics
Me using the Scanner :P
India adds record 3.2 million GSM mobile users in December
Whale in River Thames Causes a Wave
God a superstition?
Greek Philosophers
World war 2 and generally world History
Sleep less to get more out of life?
Memory Useage & Firefox
Most peaceful religion
The Middle East Conflict
Should marijuana be legal?
Climate change escalates Darfur crisis
Did the ancients study history
Small Diabetes FAQ
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> History

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.