Essay on war
War has been a part of human culture since it's birth. It has led to a great many massacres and has shown us the evil that exists within the souls of humanity. Some have even gone as far as saying that war is human nature. To better understand the reasons behind war and how it affects others, I've examined several different societies and cultures so as to better understand the necessity of war and see the cause of their external war attitude. To do so, different variables from two topics (military institutions and external war attitude) were matched up and crossed so as to look into the answers to these questions. The variables were then calculated and through these graphs, I was able to find different societies in which these variables applied to. The different variables that I looked into were that of hostility toward other societies, acceptability of violence toward people in other societies, decision to engage in war, leadership during battle, and the value of war: violence against non-members or groups. It is through looking into these variables that I'd like to test my hypothesis on how a countries holdings and military prowess causes more of an aggressive external war attitude towards surrounding countries and societies. With this in mind, I'd also like to look further into each culture to see if the greatness of being a warrior increases the aggression on the outside peoples.
Through my research of the various variables, I came across several different societies that scored highly on my variable chart. To further test my hypothesis, I've taken these various variables and researched them through different societies to either prove or disprove m hypothesis.
Somalis
My research begins with the Somalis. Th...
... middle of paper ...
...es external war attitude. I was also incorrect in that I forgot to include within my hypothesis that the leaders outlook of the situation and how the expansion of their military and their holdings would also bring about a different outtake on how their war attitude would be. So in conclusion, these societies have shown me that the main reason for these societies going into war was their hope of gaining prestige, wealth, and a greater territory. It's something that is not much different than now. After all, it's human nature.
Works Cited
Keen, Benjamin "The Aztec Image in Western Thought" Rutgers University 1971
Tooker, Elisabeth "The Huron" 1965
Buck, Peter "The Coming of the Maori" 1962
Muir, Lucy Philip "An African People in the 20th Century" 1934
Baxter P.T.W.& A.Butt "Azande and Related Peoples of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan and the Belgian Congo"(1953)
Fiero, Gloria K. "Africa: Gods, Rulers, and the Social Order." The Humanistic Tradition. 6th ed.
At some point in everyone's lifetime, a tough choice emerges. The characters in John Marsden’s
World War 2 was one of the most deadliest war in our world 's history having as many as sixty million civilians that lost their lives during this war.It impacted a lot of countries as a matter of fact it impacted the whole world.It also damaged the countries involved greatly, and let the downfall of western european countries as world powers, leaving it to the soviet union and the united states. The war started in 1939 and ended in 1945 also, economic changes occurred to big countries such as Germany, Great Britain, United States, Japan, Russia, and France, (Darman, 20). World War 2 was undoubtedly one of the most important events in history not only for what happened throughout the six years of war but also the aftermath of the war. Beyond
The government of the United States and of Oceania use war as a political tool to control the social views of the people, the products and wealth of the country, and the opinions of politicians and government officials. The ways in which war is used as a political tool includes controlling citizens, and products of a country. Both the country in 1984 and the United States use war in similar ways. When comparing the current time with the story of 1984 it is easy to see the similarities in how war is used as a political tool.
War is commonly defined as an armed conflict between two entities, one that dates back to the beginning of mankind’s very existence. During this time many have attempted to explain the complex nature of war, its actors, and its origins. There are two authors in particular who have made critical analysis on the topic of war within the international system, more specifically the nature of balanced power and hegemonic war and the role that perception plays in conflict. Glipin asserts that disequilibrium will result in a hegemonic war due to inferior civilizations striking falling civilizations. Whereas Jervis asserts that misperception is the driving cause of war. I argue that it is not an inferior civilization, but rather different economies
All throughout time and history people have been at war with each other at one point or another. War can, truthfully, at times be inescapable and considered by some historians as a natural instinct, an instinct that every human being possess. Throughout history mighty empires and governments have collapsed due to the damages inflicted on by a war, yet in spite of this, some have managed to face the odds and make it through, staggering along as if nothing happened. War is a true test of an empire or government’s determination to move forward, adapting using the knowledge and intellect they have acquired to their own advantage. Nevertheless, not all wars lead to fighting by physical means but instead it can lead to fighting mentally by opposing sides. One such example would be the non-traditional Cold War fought between the United States and Soviet Union. The Cold War was a time that caused an immense fear in the lives of many, and inspired novels such as 1984 by George Orwell, Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank, and essays such as “You and the Atomic Bomb” by George Orwell, which are just some of the voices from this terrible time.
In the United States the cold-blooded murder of one citizen to another is considered cruel, psychopathic, and illegal. The thought of murdering a fellow human being is, justifiably, discriminated against and shunned. Since murder is officially condemned wrong what causes one to believe that in the case of war, murder on a large scale, that this happening can be considered acceptable, at some points cheered on even. If murder is not justifiable, then war is not justifiable; but in the case when the lesser evil must dominate the greater evil in order to maintain peace, then this scenario of war may be considered more just than any alternative.
The United States has been involved in many wars since its inception. WWII in particular had a significant impact on the world and the United States. Through the years 1939 to 1945 the majority of the world suffered many tragedies and hardships. In total, 50 million people died including women, children, civilians, and innocent bystanders. Adolf Hitler, the leader of Nazi Germany, was responsible for a significant amount of these deaths. Hitler, aligned with Japan, wanted to seize all of Europe and Japan wanted to conquer Asia. A major cause of WWII was that Germany strongly disapproved of the Treaty of Versailles. Germany especially didn’t like that they had to accept all the blame for WWI, paying $ 6,600 million for the damage they caused in WWI, and they were only allowed to have a small army and six naval ships, no tanks, no air force and no submarines were allowed. Also, the Rhineland area was to be de-militarized and taken out of Germany’s possession. All of these conditions were written in the Treaty of Versailles. During the war the world formed two sides, the Allies and the Axis Powers. The Allies included Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States, known as “the Big 3”. The Axis Powers included Germany, Italy, and Japan. At the end of the war the Allies were triumphant and the world gained its peace.
The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.
Almost every state on Earth desires peace, so why do countries go to war so often? Between World War I and World War II alone, there were an estimated 81 million casualties (Primary Megadeaths). Each state has different values and desires and many are willing to do whatever it takes to ensure those values remain in their state as well as spread to others. War results in a failure of states to successfully bargain with one another. The most common reason for wars to occur is territorial control. Of the 155 wars in the past three centuries, 83 of them dealt with territory (Holsti). Adding more territory will often add more wealth to the state. One way it can do that is by providing goods, resources, or industries that a state needs, such as oil or minerals. Iran and Iraq fought a war from 1980-1988 partially because Iraq sought to take control of Iran’s southern oil fields, according to World Politics. Military strategy can also play a role in why states seek new territories. Finally, states can be interested in territory for ethnic, cultural, or historical reasons. A prime ex...
Chapter Eight War and Society reveals the attitudes about war in both ancient Rome and China. These attitudes prove that in these cases perhaps it is safe to say that wars are not inevitable or natural but were caused by warlike societies and social situations. After reading bits and pieces of both the ancient Roman and Chinese history, one can only gain a greater perspective on how these attitudes derived. In 391 nomads called the Gauls defeated a small army of Roman aristocrats and burnt down the town of Rome. After this attack, Rome rebuilt its town and changed it into an empire, which spread its laws, culture, and peace from the North. Rome was convinced that after this first invasion, it was necessary to change their military.
“United in this determination and with unshakable fain in the cause for which we fight, we will, with God’s help, go forward to our greatest victory,” said General Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1944. Eisenhower referenced America in this quote, and how they came together from children and women’s support at home, to the men fighting the war overseas. America showed loyalty to their country throughout World War 2 from the home front to the battlefield, gaining the prestigious effects on America by winning the devastating war.
Stoessinger, John G. Why Nations Go to War, 7th ed. New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc., 1998.
Strong, brave, and powerful are usually the words that come to mind when you think of a traditional war hero. In Tim O’Brien’s novel he uses war heroes that aren’t what people usually imagine when they think of a war hero. They are straight out of high school, and most of the soldiers in his novel are cowards. They are scared of going into the war and even when they have a chance to save one of their friends they just let them die. Not using traditional war heroes allowed Tim O’Brien to show that not all heroes are heroic and courageous, and that they were just normal people going into a war they didn’t understand.
For many Decades wars have been fought on the pretense of rage, hatred, greed and bitterness. Wars are gruesome, many lives are lost and forgotten, but heroes are established and countries are founded. Heroes such as Winston Churchill, whom wrote “We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender He defended his country, he died for his nation and for a cause that still remembers until this day. Without the establishment of war, countries would be left without political and moral order, civil rights will never be created and there would not be any moral