Why is War?

[richardfinegold]

Fair points all, aeolium. Vietnam a rather messy example - the USA took over an old French colonial war, giving it some new ideological clothes as a result of which it became a Cold War proxy war. The French had taken it back from the Japanese, who'd taken it from them when it was a good old-fashioned colony. As far as the Vietnamese were concerned the war at least against the French was primarily a war of liberation, and they had little choice but to continue against the USA, no? Why was there a Cold War.....

I think all wars acquire a momentum/logic of their own, and are hard to stop once started. I read a fascinating book - can't rmember title or author offhand - recently, discussing the break-up of the Roman Empire. It calculated how many hectares of grain were required not only to feed each and every Roman legion on the frontier (from Britain to the East), but also how much to feed the ox trains and their guards....Hitler needed oil, bauxite and coal.....Alexander the Great began in the least well-endowed part of Greece, so his expansion made some sense at first....Napoleon couldn't afford to stop.....

Hitler had his economic imperatives, but they were not what drove him to war. He was motivated by Principally by a perceived need to increase German "Living Space", avenge what he perceived as Historical wrongs, and to exterminate classes of Humanity that he thought were subhuman. If anything, his Generals and
Economic Advisors (Hjalmar Schact) advised him against going to war, because of the lack of German self sufficency in areas such as Energy Production and bauxite. Ultimately, the lack of fuel for his Planes and tanks proved his undoing on the Western Front. Let's not forget what the Nazis were about. Their economic interests were secondary to their Imperialistic Ambitions, and not the cause of them.

[Richard Tarleton]

Hitler had his economic imperatives, but they were not what drove him to war. He was motivated by Principally by a perceived need to increase German "Living Space", avenge what he perceived as Historical wrongs, and to exterminate classes of Humanity that he thought were subhuman. If anything, his Generals and
Economic Advisors (Hjalmar Schact) advised him against going to war, because of the lack of German self sufficency in areas such as Energy Production and bauxite. Ultimately, the lack of fuel for his Planes and tanks proved his undoing on the Western Front. Let's not forget what the Nazis were about. Their economic interests were secondary to their Imperialistic Ambitions, and not the cause of them.

Quite - I only meant that the constant and growing need for raw materials was part of the internal logic of the war itself, once it was under way. Once started, a war is a monster that has to be fed.

I still think that China's current activities go way beyond the boundaries of mutually beneficial trade, influencing the governance and the environment as well as improving the infrastructure of the countries in which they trade. Their influence in Burma, a country rich in minerals, where they have a vested interest in propping up the present unsavoury regime and in opposing democracy which might ultimately object to their activities, is wholly malign.

In East Africa Chinese money is helping to cause major devastation in the environment. Plus, of course, in those African (and other) countries where corruption is rife, Chinese money can only serve to entrench this corruption. The benefits of war without the bloodshed or expense.

I've just ordered a book which is receiving excellent reviews - Yuval Noah Harari's "Sapiens - A Brief History of Humankind". Among other things he discusses war and peace - to quote briefly from the review in The Times,

...where [peace] does exist it is partly, as is generally thought, because atom bombs have made the cost of war so high. But it's also because the profits are now so low. The wealth of developed nations no longer consists of land, or cattle, but knowledge, so invading a country is largely pointless

The Middle East, "where wealth is old fashioned material wealth", is an exception. Obviously there are geopolitical considerations in the case of Ukraine - warm water ports, etc. - but that local war is also a relic of Russian imperialism, as well as Ukraine's being at least in the past Russia's bread basket. And Putin has to continue because he can't afford to stop, or retire, for fear of what would happen to him.

[richardfinegold]

Quite - I only meant that the constant and growing need for raw materials was part of the internal logic of the war itself, once it was under way. Once started, a war is a monster that has to be fed.

I still think that China's current activities go way beyond the boundaries of mutually beneficial trade, influencing the governance and the environment as well as improving the infrastructure of the countries in which they trade. Their influence in Burma, a country rich in minerals, where they have a vested interest in propping up the present unsavoury regime and in opposing democracy which might ultimately object to their activities, is wholly malign.

In East Africa Chinese money is helping to cause major devastation in the environment. Plus, of course, in those African (and other) countries where corruption is rife, Chinese money can only serve to entrench this corruption. The benefits of war without the bloodshed or expense.

I've just ordered a book which is receiving excellent reviews - Yuval Noah Harari's "Sapiens - A Brief History of Humankind". Among other things he discusses war and peace - to quote briefly from the review in The Times, The Middle East, "where wealth is old fashioned material wealth", is an exception. Obviously there are geopolitical considerations in the case of Ukraine - warm water ports, etc. - but that local war is also a relic of Russian imperialism, as well as Ukraine's being at least in the past Russia's bread basket. And Putin has to continue because he can't afford to stop, or retire, for fear of what would happen to him.

China is going through an Imperialist phase, using their economic might to extract resources from less powerful areas, and not caring about the consequences to those Countries. From the Chinese viewpoint they are treating the rest of the World as they themselves were exploited a couple of centuries. That doesn't make it acceptable, but one can understand them turning a deaf ear to the protests of the Countries that used to exploit them.
I agree with your assessment of Putin. It is hard for a strident Nationalist to not back up years of rhetoric without ultimately putting words into action. From his standpoint waiting until Ukraine was at it's weakest and most vulnerable was a great time to act.
With respect to Atomic weapons, one of the overlooked aspects of the Manhatten Project was the Political imperative to use them due to the sheer expense of creating them. They consumed an inordinate part of America's expenditure during WWII . Not using them, and having to accept the enormous Casualties of an invasion of mainland Japan, would have been
Difficult to explain to the voters at election time. Consider the implications of this for North Korea. No voters to account for to be sure, but they must feel some need to show the starving populace what they get for the sacrifice they made for their Nuclear Program

[Sydney Grew]

. . . China's current activities . . .

The Chinese are lovely peaceable harmless people, as I well know having had the privilege of residence among them for a number of years. The real ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM is the Japanese nation; why does every one strive to forget and not mention them? I know a bit about character and customs, and can confidently predict that one fine day - not very far in the future but hopefully after I have withdrawn beyond the veil - the Nipponese navy will come steaming round the point and that will spell the end of European settlement in the Antipodes.

[Richard Tarleton]

The real ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM is the Japanese nation; why does every one strive to forget and not mention them?

To be fair I did, if only briefly. The argument (on war) of the Harari book, which I look forward to reading, is apparently that these days the wealth of countries like Japan consists in knowledge, and that the days of wars between developed nations merely to occupy territory are gone (with the exception for reasons stated of Putin's Russia). What reason would there be for that - population resettlement?

I think if we went to war with Japan again it would be over whales.

[french frank]

The Chinese are lovely peaceable harmless people, as I well know having had the privilege of residence among them for a number of years

In Tibet, perhaps ...?

[amateur51]

And Putin has to continue because he can't afford to stop, or retire, for fear of what would happen to him.

Y'mean his pecs would turn into moobs?!

Perish the thought

[Richard Tarleton]

The minute he relinquishes the levers of power, they'll turn on him. I've only read extracts from Ben Judah's book, but it seems pretty clear.

[ahinton]

The Chinese are lovely peaceable harmless people, as I well know having had the privilege of residence among them for a number of years. The real ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM is the Japanese nation; why does every one strive to forget and not mention them? I know a bit about character and customs, and can confidently predict that one fine day - not very far in the future but hopefully after I have withdrawn beyond the veil - the Nipponese navy will come steaming round the point and that will spell the end of European settlement in the Antipodes.

Leaving aside your remarks about the Japanese but empathising with the reason for FF's reference to Tibet, does your view of China's human rights record encourage your evident belief in the loveliness, peaceable nature and harmlessness of the Chinese? I do not doubt for one moment that there are members of the Chinese population that exhibit some or all of these characteristics, but the country itself sets few credible and worthy examples of humanitarian activity.

[doversoul1]

I have no intention whatsoever of defending China but where human rights or humanitarian activity are concerned, it may be worth reminding ourselves that these are largely, if not entirely, based on Western concepts. What appears appalling to us may have perfectly legitimate reasons within their (Chinese) culture.