Origins and Characteristics of Wars - incl Futility

[2020hindsight]

There has been much discussion over many threads about the origins of wars.

In particular whether religion was involved, (usually easy to answer)
was religion ALONE involved (much more difficult to answer)
otherwise nationalism
payback for past attrocities,
greedy expansionism,
even oil / other resources etc

I thought we could throw a few facts into the discussion. The plan would be to collect a heap of evidence over various wars , and after a month or so, we might come up with some conclusions - OR equally likely become even more confused lol.

In summary I am having trouble deciding one particular war categorically one way or the other .. namely the Crimean War (for starters)...

http://warchronicle.com/britain/crimea/origin_war.htm
Origin of the Crimean War

Source: Cecil Woodham-Smith, The Reason Why: The Story of the Fatal Charge of the Light Brigade (Penguin Books, 1958), pp. 134-136

[Tsar] Nicholas was looking out for an excuse to attack Turkey, and in the summer of 1853 he found his excuse at Bethlehem. The Church of the Nativity there, traditionally built over the stable where Christ was born, was the scene of violent clashes between monks of the Orthodox Church, supported by Russia, and monks of the Roman Catholic Church, supported by France; and since Palestine was in the Turkish Empire, the police in the church were Turkish Mohammedans.

The Orthodox denied the right of the Roman Catholics to place a silver star over the manger and to possess a golden key to the church door, and this summer of 1853 a serious riot took place; the Roman Catholics succeeded after a prolonged struggle in placing their star over the manger, but not before several Orthodox monks had been killed. The Tsar instantly asserted that the Turkish police had deliberately allowed the Orthodox monks to be murdered, and marched into the Danubian provinces of Turkey, proclaiming himself the protector of the Orthodox Christian subjects of the Sultan from Turkish persecution. By October 1853 Turkey and Russia were at war.

At this point you'd say that religion was involved to the hilt. EXCEPT that the Tsar was "looking for an excuse".

England remained neutral. But when on November 30th the Russian fleet sailed out of Sebastopol, took the Turkish fleet by surprise at Sinope and wiped it out, the English were transported with rage, and angry mobs paraded the London streets. By the end of January 1854 war was plainly inevitable. ***

Meanwhile, an extraordinary bellicosity had seized [England]. Grave doubts were entertained in well-informed quarters on the wisdom and the probable outcome of the war—the Prime Minister, Lord Aberdeen, was against it. The Times was against it, the Queen and the Prince Consort were uncertain. But the people were intoxicated. Memories of past victories went to their heads, the names of Waterloo and Trafalgar were on every lip, crowds paraded the streets delirious with excitement, inflated with national pride. ‘When people are inflamed in that way they are no better than mad dogs,’ wrote Cobbett and so in March 1854, shouting, cheering, singing, the nation swept into war.

I mean England had its natrional pride to think of ...

Starting to sound like the crusades this one... except lol , we end up on the side of Islam fighting the Christians

.... this is how confusing the religious influence became lol...

On March 27th the Queen's message of war was read in the Commons, and next day war was declared. The precise causes and objects of the war remained obscure.

It was puzzling to find the British nation fighting on the side of Mohammedans against Christians, even if Palmerston was right when he said that that had nothing to do with the question. Mr Disraeli’s explanation did not seem much more satisfactory: he remarked that he thought we were going to war to prevent the Emperor of all the Russias from protecting the Christian subjects of the Sultan of Turkey. And John Bright told the House of Commons that he could see no adequate reason for the conflict. The voice of the people, however, found expression in a less distinguished member, a Mr John Ball, who assured the House that the real justification of the war was vast, high and noble: ‘the maintenance in civilized society of the principles of right and justice’.

imo, religion is 33% responible, and nationalism 33%, and stupidity 34%. Futility? - over to you lol

By the way, I read somewhere (Churchills History of the English Speaking Peoples) that the Turks had already cleared the Russian threat before the Brits turned up - so the British efforts were always futile. Then followed, of course, the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava, when the idiots charged the wrong hill. --- but that's another story.

 

[2020hindsight]

A book on Balaclava , Charge of the Light Brigade ...

The personalities lol (sheesh - incompetent buffoons)

Perhaps the moral of the story is to choose your political and military leaders wisely ...

How two men so completely arrogant and inept came to a position of power in the British Army is shocking, especially when one considers that it was widely known that neither man was fit to command cavalry squadrons, let alone brigades and divisions.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0140012788?filterBy=addFourStar

Arrogance and stupidity..., June 17, 2004
By Brent Wigen (Seattle, WA USA)

Cecil Woodham-Smith's story of the Charge of the Light Brigade is the biography of two men: Lords Lucan and Cardigan; brothers-in-law whose hatred for each other was surpassed only by arrogance and ineptitude as officers. Woodham-Smith's book is the story of two men cradled by an absurd system of rank and class, who came together as two of the highest-ranking officers in one of the worst-run campaigns in British military history, which resulted in one of the most legendary blunders in all of military history.

In the lifetimes of Lucan and Cardigan (the late eighteenth and early nineteeth century), the best way to get ahead in the British Army was to purchase your rank. The purchase system, as it was called, was basically a way for England's wealthy classes to keep the most powerful positions in the army for themselves, and exclude those individuals who were not of the same social stratum.

This system was supported by Britain's greatest military mind, the Duke of Wellington, who, it is explained, somehow managed to hide the deficiencies of the system behind his military brilliance. However, by the time Lucan and Cardigan came into a position of authority, Wellington had long since passed away, none of the high officers involved in the Crimean campaign had heard a shot fired in anger, and the only combat-experienced officers in the British Army (those who had served in India) were unwanted.

The biography portion of the book gets a little bit cumbersome at times, especially for those of us who aren't entirely familiar with the British nobility system, but it provides an interesting backstory to the disaster in the Crimea. How two men so completely arrogant and inept came to a position of power in the British Army is shocking, especially when one considers that it was widely known that neither man was fit to command cavalry squadrons, let alone brigades and divisions.

Ultimately, Woodham-Smith's argument is effective: the purchase system, coupled with the British class system, was ripe for a disaster. By allowing incompetency to buy its way up the ranks while more competent solders were bypassed and more experienced soldiers were shunned, it was only a matter of time until the British experienced a debacle such as Balaclava and the entire Crimean Campaign. Unfortunately for the British, it took two spectaculary arrogant and stupid men to breed such a disaster, and when it finally happened, it happened in spectacular fashion.

 

[treefrog]

Charge! ..........my/your/his/her imaginary friend is with you.

only contribution to this one 20/20 is to pin up the Macquarie Concise Dictionary's primary definition of religion near the starting blocks.

"1. The quest for the values of the ideal life, involving three phases, the ideal, the practices for attaining the values of the ideal, and the theology or world view relating the quest to the environing universe."

 

[ithatheekret]

I think you'll find all the categories listed that are the catalysts for war , were seized upon , because it was in whoevers interest to do so .

Europe had to evolve from a feudal system and which still had roots in the Aristocracies of little dots on the map , with larger ones known as Empires surrounding them . As trade evolved there were those that would cut off their noses to spite their face so to speak , as they were generally Aristocracies with a military backbone , which made them stubborn .
Stubborn enough for relatives to send nations to war , cousins fighting cousins , the Yanks went one better , brother fighting brother .

There are still memories of these days preached to generations of Europeans , many of which predate Hitler Inc etc., much of the bad stuff is deleted though ..... the " it never happened theorists "and the it will go away just ignore it crowd , especially when looking towards Europe .

The only reason could be that they had a vested interest to do so .

Expansionism , yes , but why ?

Trade , yes , but why ?

Religion , yes , but why ?

Oil , yes , but why ? ( they can print money to buy it ! )

etc. etc . etc.

 

[2020hindsight]

Charge! ..........my/your/his/her imaginary friend is with you.

only contribution to this one 20/20 is to pin up the Macquarie Concise Dictionary's primary definition of religion near the starting blocks.

"1. The quest for the values of the ideal life, involving three phases, the ideal, the practices for attaining the values of the ideal, and the theology or world view relating the quest to the environing universe."

yep - thanks frog...

As I said , I doubt we are gonna change anyone's opinion here - although I'm hopeful that Futility will score high - the subliminal capitals

AND that also goes for their personal definition of religion.

Here's a discussion ON JUST THE DEFINITION of "religion" lol - anything from sharp definition to vague generalities
Your definition can be #1... here are some others ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Religion has been defined in a wide variety of ways. Most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities.

Some sources have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions while others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors. Definitions mostly include:

2. a notion of the transcendent
3. a cultural or behavioural aspect of ritual, liturgy and organized worship, often involving a priesthood, and societal norms of morality (ethos) and virtue (arete)
4. a set of myths or sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents

5. Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix.

For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[6] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions.

6. .... Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy. For example Rudolf Otto's "The Idea of the Holy," formulated in 1917, defines the essence of religious awareness as awe, a unique blend of fear and fascination before the divine.

7. Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 18th century defined religion as a "feeling of absolute dependence."

8. The Encyclopedia of Religion defines religion this way:[7] ... Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience ”” varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

9. Many more ... - look em up if you're interested (don't want to confuse, here)

I'm personally probably more inclined to this one...

10. Other encyclopedic definitions include: "A general term used... to designate all concepts concerning the belief in god(s) and goddess(es) as well as other spiritual beings or transcendental ultimate concerns"[8] and "human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine."[9]

In the end they seem to chose this one ...

11. A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. .... shared conviction.

 

[2020hindsight]

In summary (imo - feel free to challenge)

Score "religion" if you can imagine a significant influence in a significant number of wars to be someone marching behind a flag with any of these symbols - and the other team with another of those symbols.

Obviously soldiers will always (I guess) be praying that their god will beat the other bloke's god ( imaginary friends as treefrog calls em). - BUT if both people are praying to the same god ( eg Christian vs Christian) then you could hardly score that as "a war with religious origin" (IMO)

I mean I personally don't see any religious origin in WW2, but I still think "religion" scores highly "in the origins of your average war"
(as do three other boxes I ticked)

 

[nioka]

I ticked "other". There was no box for " all of the above"
The war in IRAQ would have to have been the result of all of them.

 

[Scuba]

Somewhat interesting post 2020, I will keep watching to see if my expectations are fulfilled (religion to blame)...

Personally, I feel that it is not religion that starts wars, but the interpretation of the teachings (of religion) are often responsible due to those who choose to cleverly quote the tenets and principles (of the given religion) to suit their manipulative purposes...
A classic example of this is "An eye for an eye" when used in support of capital punishment, which pays no attention or mention of a) Thou shalt not kill, or b) Judge not, lest ye be judged, or (let he cast the first stone who is innocent)

Politicians and their search for power?
Michael Moore's "Farenheit 9/11" and the scene outside the congress (?) where he asks the pollies to enlist their sons, to which one replies along the lines of "don't be stupid"...

Disclosure; I do not follow any particular religion, but believe they have some good principals which echo throughout the various teachings...

 

[explod]

I ticked "other". There was no box for " all of the above"
The war in IRAQ would have to have been the result of all of them.

Wish I did not have to disagree all the time, just cant' help myself, but..in my humble opinion the war in Iraq was only about oil and is still about oil, period

 

[IFocus]

War to me is that men seek to exercise power over others the ultimate is to kill others during the process.

The reasons i.e. religion is purely a vehicle to exercise this power a bit of a Trojan horse.

When I say religion I really mean churches, sects, cultural groups etc where the herd mentality comes into play like believe my interpretation or else you are going to hell again simply men exercising power over others.

The end game is that religion has little to do with the reasons…..

Focus

 

[2020hindsight]

Stubborn enough for relatives to send nations to war , cousins fighting cousins , the Yanks went one better , brother fighting brother .

re the American Civil War, you wonder if they would have emarked on the bloody thing - and instead tried to negotiate something - if they knew that the cost would be so high , 620,000 ! - "these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars".

Cause? :- obviously slavery - a noble cause in the final analysis.

(carpetbaggers need not get a mention )

The Price in Blood!
Casualties in the Civil War

At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.

The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:

Battle deaths: 110,070
Disease, etc.: 250,152
Total 360,222

The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:

Battle deaths: 94,000
Disease, etc.: 164,000
Total 258,000

Here are casualties in other wars :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_toll

 

[2020hindsight]

Here's a different way to look at the American War of Independence
In fact it was their first Civil War !

And two uncomfortable truths about it - the fact that it was a civil war (perhaps 100,000 loyalists fled abroad at its end), and that it was also a world war (the Americans could scarcely have won without French help) - are often forgotten

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/rebels_redcoats_01.shtml

The American War of Independence: The Rebels and the Redcoats
By Professor Richard Holmes

Richard Holmes reviews the course of the American Revolutionary War, and discusses whether American independence was inevitable from the moment that the first shots were fired.

Introduction
The War of Independence plays such an important part in American popular ideology that references to it are especially prone to exaggeration and oversimplification. And two uncomfortable truths about it - the fact that it was a civil war (perhaps 100,000 loyalists fled abroad at its end), and that it was also a world war (the Americans could scarcely have won without French help) - are often forgotten.

'The War of Independence plays such an important part in American popular ideology...'
Here, however, I have done my best to describe this long and complex war in terms that people will find readily comprehensible, but that avoid some of the Hollywood-style simplifications and inaccuracies that have gained so much currency over the years.

And although as I write this piece, the second Gulf War has only recently ended, and although the Vietnam analogy comes to mind often, I have deliberately avoided reflecting too much on recent American politics. No: what I have tried to do is to give readers the most balanced and objective view I can of a war that has done much, as my television screen reminds me as I write, to shape the world we live in.

Guess we could look at the Alamo, (Davey Crockett etc) . but I'd be 100% amazed if the fight with Mexico over Texas was anything other than a 100% grab for land. - and maybe some Texans don't seem to be able to give up the habit?

The slaughter of the red indians (often ignoring truces etc) ? - (like the Civil War, many of the casualties were due to disease - cholera etc at the waterholes) - grab for land - but ..... just an aside - the old red indian quote "when the white man came, we had the land and they had the bible. Now we have the bible and they have the land."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger

In United States history, carpetbaggers were Northerners who moved to the South during Reconstruction between 1865 and 1877. They formed a coalition with Freedmen (freed slaves), and Scalawags (Southern whites who supported the Reconstruction) in the Republican Party, which in turn controlled ex-Confederate states for varying periods, 1867–1877.

"Carpetbaggers" was coined from the carpet bags used as inexpensive luggage. It was originally a derogatory term, suggesting an exploiter who does not plan to stay. Although the term is still an insult in common usage, in histories and reference works it is now used without derogatory intent. Since 1900 the term has also been used to describe outsiders attempting to gain political office or economic advantage, especially in areas (thematically or geographically) to which they previously had no connection.

In the United Kingdom, the term is often used informally to refer to those who attempt to force a mutual organization, such as a building society, to demutualise ”” to list on a stock exchange, solely for personal pecuniary advantage.

 

[numbercruncher]

Wars ? Lets follow the money trail and so called "conspiracys" which look more like truths.


Some of the strongest proponents of the Fractional reserve banking system, names like Rothschild ,Rockefeller have financed both sides of most major Wars.

"Let me issue and control a Nation's money and I care not who makes its laws".

Amsel (Amschel) Bauer Mayer Rothschild, 1838

 

[2020hindsight]

Wars ? Lets follow the money trail and so called "conspiracys" which look more like truths.

Some of the strongest proponents of the Fractional reserve banking system, names like Rothschild ,Rockefeller have financed both sides of most major Wars.

Amsel (Amschel) Bauer Mayer Rothschild, 1838

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/custer.htm - here's the story on Custer - just one battle of the indian "wars" (as if we can talk - but the Abs never managed to turn the odds on us)

nc, So are you suggesting that the populace are so ignorant, and so easily hood-winked -
...
and have been subjected to so many "history books re-written by the victor" ...

that we can be talked into a (modern) war for others to benefit from?
shame on you !! lol.

Joe Kennedy (JFK's dad) was in UK at outbreak of WWII, and was pro nazi in his rhetoric - possibly just being pragmatic in those days - certainly he didn't take into account that people with moral fibre like Churchill might get involved

I like the fact that the US took a stack of melanesian islands after the war - and - (oh thank you great saviour) - proceeded to blow up Bikini atoll with 20 nuclear bombs between 1946 and 1958.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Atoll

Bikini Atoll (also known as Pikinni Atoll) is an uninhabited 2.3-square-mile (6.0 km²) atoll in one of the Micronesian Islands in the Pacific Ocean, part of Republic of the Marshall Islands. It consists of 36 islands surrounding a 229.4-square-mile (594.1 km²) lagoon. As part of the Pacific Proving Grounds it was the site of more than 20 nuclear weapons tests between 1946 and 1958, including the first test of a practical dry fuel hydrogen bomb in 1952.

 

[numbercruncher]

Great reading here summarising things .....

http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html

A few Quotes from within ..

War uses up more materials more quickly than most anything else on earth. In war expensive equipment doesn't wear out slowly, it gets blown up. (It's interesting to note that during the 119 year period from the founding of the Bank of England to Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, England had been at war for 56 years, while the rest of the time preparing for it. In the process the money changers had been getting rich.) So there it was, the newly formed Federal Reserve poised to produce any money the U.S. Government might need from thin air with each dollar standing to make a healthy interest. Nine days after its formation the Federal Reserve founders were wishing each other a Happy New Year. What good fortune might 1914 bring?

WORLD WAR I (1914-1918)

The Germans borrowed money from the German Rothschilds bank, the British from the British Rothschilds bank, and the French from the French Rothschilds.

Alot can be learnt by studying the History of money I reckon

 

[numbercruncher]

nc, So are you suggesting that the populace are so ignorant, and so easily hood-winked -
...
and have been subjected to so many "history books re-written by the victor" ...

that we can be talked into a (modern) war for others to benefit from?
shame on you !! lol.

Hmm im not sure the masses are Ignorant, I think both sides go to War for reasons they genuinely beleive, but the masters of the financial Universe seem to provide the Oil that stops the engine from seizing.

WW1 for example, if the Rothschilds didnt finance every major player, would the engine of seized ?

Iraq for example, If the Fed hadnt provided 1t of Newly created Fiat computer entries would the US gov been able to remain in their or even have gone their ?

The money trail and who benefits the most is a tried , tested and successful method in Criminal investigation, same could be true in many Wars of past I reckon.

 

[2020hindsight]

another "other" - extremism? like the Nazis etc

Speaking of Joe Kennedy being a Nazi sympathiser -

then again - so was King Edward VIII (he of "Edward and Mrs Simpson")

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/MONedwardVIII.htm

The war created problems for the royal family because of its German background. Owing to strong anti-German feeling in Britain, it was decided to change the name of the family from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor.
..........
Edward's relationship with Simpson created a great deal of scandal. So also did his political views. In 1934 he made comments suggesting he supported the British Union of Fascists. Wallis Simpson's reputation was also hurt by rumours that she was also having an affair with Joachim von Ribbentrop, the German Ambassador to Britain. She was also known to hold pro-Nazi political views.

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/naziroot.htm

One of the biggest public relations hoaxes ever perpetrated by the British Crown, is that King Edward VIII, who abdicated the throne in 1938, due to his support for the Nazis, was a ``black sheep,'' an aberration in an otherwise unblemished Windsor line.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The British monarchy, and the City of London's leading Crown bankers, enthusiastically backed Hitler and the Nazis, bankrolled the Führer's election, and did everything possible to build the Nazi war machine, for Britain's planned geopolitical war between Germany and Russia.

Support for Nazi-style genocide has always been at the heart of House of Windsor policy, and long after the abdication of Edward VIII, the Merry Windsors maintained their direct Nazi links.

:topic You wonder what would have happened to (the current) Prince Philip if
a) this website was able to prove its claims, (I personally think it's over the top) and
b) the current "terror laws" and "guilty by association" - Haneef style - also applied then (I currently think they are also over the top)

... To ...truly understand the Windsors today, it is useful to start with Prince Philip. Not only was he trained in the Hitler Youth curriculum, but his German brothers-in-law, with whom he lived, all became high-ranking figures in the Nazi Party......

(and didnt the current Pope spend some time with Hitler youth? )
Guilt by association is a tough call yes?

 

[numbercruncher]

Theres lots of uncanny and little known Nazi links , thats why i see money supply as the most common denominator.

another Nazi link, Yasser Arafats uncle the Grand Mufti (of Jerusalem), Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini was the head on the Nazi Hansar division , interesting line of research with direct connections, lineage, Ideaology to people like Saddam Hussein, The Muslim brotherhood > Al Qaeda etc ....

 

[2020hindsight]

Theres lots of uncanny and little known Nazi links , thats why i see money supply as the most common denominator.

another Nazi link, Yasser Arafats uncle the Grand Mufti (of Jerusalem), Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini was the head on the Nazi Hansar division , interesting line of research with direct connections, lineage, Ideaology to people like Saddam Hussein, The Muslim brotherhood > Al Qaeda etc ....

I'm guess the Palestinians followed Laurence of Arabia in WWI, and were screwed by Britain and France (leaving Laurence's promises of a Palestine ruled by Palestinians - if they helped defeat the Turks - hollow ) -
and they thought they could do ... no worse with the Nazis ?

 

[2020hindsight]

well at this stage of the poll, 360% of respondents think that war is one of those things at least