Causes Of War (Micheal Howard) What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the

fear this caused in Sparta Thucydides The Athenians made their Empire more and more strong.(until) finally the point was reached when Athenian strength attained a peak plain for all to see and the Athenian began to encroach upon Sparta Allies. It was at this point that Sparta felt the position to be no longer tolerable and decided by starting the present war to employ all her energies in attacking and if possible destroying the power of Athens (use this as a model-just change the name of the actors) Before 1914, war was universally considered an acceptable, perhaps inevitable and to many people desirable way of settling international differences. War is foreseen to be brief, and no longer than war in 1870 In central Europe, the German feared the disintegration of the Habsburg Empire would result in an enormous enhancement of Russian Power ( Russian was developing with French finance industries and Railways putting Russian manpower at the service of military machine) In Western Europe, There was the traditional fear that Germany might establish a hegemony over Europe which might place at risk the security of Britain and her own possession.. Fear fueled by the knowledge that there was widespread determination within Germany to achieve a world status comparable with here not tested power or power which is yet to be used This consideration, according to Howard, had caused wars in Europe. What is the different in 1914? In the 18th entury, war had been blamed upon the stupidity or self-interest of governing elites considered insensible By 20th century, with the growth in social and biological sciences..according to Quincy Wright The Causes of War Much have been written about the subject - causes of war since the days of Thucyddides ( a great greek historian) Many books can be found in the library about the causes of war Many scholars from many fields had studied about this difficult to manage issue war From mathematicians, meteorologist, sociologists, anthropologist, geographers, physicist, political scientist, philosophers, theologians and lawyers, all these contributed in trying solution or formula for perpetual (eternal ) peace or to reduce the complexities of of international conflicts. This is because we are worried, if we fail to abolish war, war will abolish all of us.

Yes! There are plenty of material on the causes of specific war, where sometimes the scholars are also conflicting in their views ( this causes you can find in your notes) But there are very few materials or scholarlistic study that had focus on the phenomenon of war as a continuing activity within human society The alternation of war and peace has been the very stuff of the past War has been through out history as a normal way of conducting disputes between political groups If this situation so, than we can agree with the socio-biologists who claim that man is innately (present at birth) aggressive This can be empherically seen in football crowd (of course the American Football crowd) To the historians it is not a surprise ..if man use force or threat of physical force as the most elementary way of asserting Power and controlling ones environment To the historian, if force or threat of force did not settle arguments, it does play a role in determining the structure of the world we live in.

In international affairs, occasions for rivalries, whether dynastic, religious, economic, political or ideological is very clear. Therefore historians in British Universities (many many years ago), felt that it is more interesting to study the works of statesmen whose skill avoided conflict rather those whose unskillfulness has failed to prevent conflicts . Historian (Strategic Thinkers) people like Micheal Howard, does believe that breakdown in international order as a pathological aberration ( an unreasonable/unhealthy deviation) from the norm According to Micheal Howard (great Strategic Thinkers and Historian), much of the books on causes of war was written since 1914. This is because the degree of intellectual concern about causes of war only appear since First world War. This is because of the damage which WW1 did to social and political structure of Europe Shcolars began to think, if war could caused great and lasting damage, destroyed 3 great empires (French empire, Hasburg empire and Russia empire) and almost beggared/pauperised a fourth empire (British Empire), than war must have arises because of peculiar ( unsual) complexities and profundity ( understanding)from neuroses (mental disturbances) of nations, widening class struggle , from a crisis in class struggle. The question is is thisreally so? Before 1914 war was almost universally considered acceptable by many people as the desirable way of settling international differences And war ( as mean to settle differences) is foreseen to be brief and no longer than the 1870 war .

(Had they ( the statemen that initiate the WW1) known or realize that war was not really an acceptable and tolerable way of solving international disputes, statesmen and soldiers would have approached the crisis of 1914 in a different way) The attitude toward war( as mean of settling differences) is nothing new . To statesmen, if war is acceptable to certain section of the populations than is okay to go to war. Therefore if this is the reason for going to war, the reason to go to war in 1914 is no different from those taken by their predecessor of the earlier generations Than the causes of great war is no more complex and profound (no different) than those of any previous European war or those described by Thucydides of the Peloponnesian war What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear this caused in Sparta

Lets look at the scenario in Europe In central Europe, the German fear that with the disintegration of the Hasburg Empire would result the built up of enormous Russian power the power seen growing as the French financed industries and railways put Russian manpower at the service of her military machine In Western Europe, British traditionally has always fear Germany that they might establish hegemony over Europe ( even bigger than Napoleon). If this happen , It would put Britain and her possesion at security Risk. This fear was fuelled by the information they received within Germany that the Germany was determine to achieve world power status comparable with her unrealized power This kind of perception or consideration had caused wars in Europe..the causes of WW1 is nothing different from this Since the 18th century intellectuals blamed war to the stupidity or the self-interest of governing elites (now synonym with the military industrial complex) ..to these intellectuals if the control of the state affairs was in the hand of sensible men businessman and workers- there will no wars By the 20th century, with the growth of the social and biological sciences an alternative explanation appeared. According Quincy Wright in his study of war ----said that war is attributed to immaturities in social knowledge and control, like one might link epidemics to insufficient medical knowledge or to inadequate public health service Than Came the Social Darwinian proponentaccording to them if mankind was to progress, man struggle is inevitable,

To the liberal intellectuals (dominant in Britain and the United States) war was a pathological aberration from the norm, a gruesome mistake or a worse crime. They concluded that those who initiated war must have been criminal or sick or devilish possessed. Those who were accused responsible for starting WW1 disclaimed responsibility. By throwing to others the blame and said the whole thing was terrible mistake which no one was to blame WW1resulted in societies into ruins and tens of millions dead But what they should have said is thisWe only acted as statesmen always have in the past. In the circumstances then prevailing, war seemed to us to be the best way of protecting or forwarding the national interest for which we were responsible. There was an element of risk, certainly but the risk might have been greater had we postponed the issue. Our real guilt does not lie in the fact that we started the war. Our guilt lies in our mistaken belief that we could win it

If we ( the realist) are to regard war as pathological (unreasonable) and abnormal, than we must regards all conflict similar. Can we accept this? Of course we cannot. We cannot equate war with all other conflict. War is a particular kind of conflict between particular kinds of social groups known as sovereign states According to Clausewitz war is a clash between major interest that is resolved by bloodshedthis is the reason why war is differs from other conflict Remember this :Rousseau pointed out If one had no sovereign states one would have no wars Hobbes also rightly pointed out If one had no sovereign states one probably had no peace either

Ladies and Gentlemen There is no such thing as accidental war. However inchoate (imperfect) or disreputable (dishonorable) the motives of war may be, its initiation is almost deliberate and carefully considered act and its conduct is control from the center There is no such thing as war begun by mistake and continued with political purpose. Yes, statesmen are normally surprised by the nature of war they have unleashed or initiated, it is not wrong to say that at least 50% of the cases result is not what they expected Statesmen go to war to achieve a very specific ends, this is the reasons states have fought on another. Vattel the lawyer divided War into category as necessary, customary, the rational Jomini the strategist categorized war into ideological, economic and popular wars, wars to defend balance of power, wars to assist allies wars to defend rights

Quincy Wright, a Political Scientist classified war into idealistic, the psychological, the political and judicial. He further suggested that while animal war is a function of instinct and primitive war of the mores(convention and way of life of a group), civilized war is primarily a function of state politics Geoffrey Blainey, a contemporary analyst wrote:Wars are simply varieties of power. The vanity (feeling of excessive pride) of nationalism, the will to spread an ideology, the protection of kinsmen in adjacent land, the desire for more territory.all these represent power in different wrappings. The conflicting aims of rival nations are always conflict of power

For Louis the XIV war was a seasonal variation on hunting Why states go to war: State fight, not because of issue that otherwise can be solved by peace full means, in order to acquire, or to enhance or to preserve the capacity to function as independent actors in the international system. According to Raymond Aron:the stakes of war are the existence, the creation or the elimination of states a kind of gloomy analysis but historical record clearly stated

Lets look at the situation during the later middle ages and early modern period in Europe Every child born to every prince anywhere in Europe will bound to be the shift in dynastic power. Every marriage was considered as a diplomatic triumph or disaster. Every stillbirth could presage ( be a sign ) political catastrophe ( no heir) In the present situation The key events maybe different but the pattern remains the same:

A malfunction in the political mechanism in some remote African community A coup detat in small Caribbean republic An insurrection deep in hinterland of in south East Asia An assassination in some emirate in the middle-east

All this will be subjected to some kind of anxious examination and calculation, with the comparable event 100 years ago in the Balkan For example, an insurrection in Philippopolis A coup in Constantinople, An assassination in Belgrade

In general, men have fought during the past 200 years not because they are aggressive or because they are acquisitive (eager to acquire and possess things) animals but because they are reasoning being, because man can see or believe that they can see dangers before they become immediate, the possibility of threats before they are made. In 1914, The German statesmen and soldiers were said of being totally paranoid in their fear in Europe where the Russian could deploy so vast a superiority of military power ( the Russian Railway system could linked every corner of the empire with rapid transit communication) and were supported not only by France but their some their client states in the Balkans If this sort of fear could happen to German, what is the difference with the British situation in 1930? The British people felt disturbed and worried with the revival of German military capabilities and their hegemony over Eastern Europe. Even The German leaders are said that at that time to have sincerely disclaimed any intention of threatening Britain and her Empire isnt this the same paranoia experience by the German people? And because of this, In 1914 many of the German people and in 1939 nearly all the British people felt justified in going into war, not over any specific issues that could have been settled by negotiations, but to main their power and to do so while it is still possible, before they found themselves so isolated, so impotent, that they do not have power left to maintain and had to accept a subordinate position within an international system dominated by their adversaries What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear this caused in Sparta Thucydides The Athenians made their Empire more and more strong.(until) finally the point was reached when Athenian strength attained a peak plain for all to see and the Athenian began to encroach upon Sparta Allies. It was at this point that Sparta felt the position to be no longer tolerable and decided by starting the present war to employ all her energies in attacking and if possible destroying the power of Athens

For understanding lets just change the name in this model for our analysis

1914 The Russian made their Empire more and more strong.(until) finally the point was reached when Russian strength attained a peak plain for all to see and the Russian began to encroach upon German Allies. It was at this point that German felt the position to be no longer tolerable and decided by starting the present war to employ all her energies in attacking and if possible destroying the power of Russia 1930 The German made their Empire more and more strong.(until) finally the point was reached when German strength attained a peak plain for all to see and the German began to encroach upon Britain Allies. It was at this point that Britain felt the position to be no longer tolerable and decided by starting the present war to employ all her energies in attacking and if possible destroying the power of Germany .The only change since the time of Thucydides is the nature of power. Todays power is so powerful and threatening

Ladies and Gentlemen, During the time of Thucydides until Louis the XIV there was only one source of political and military power- i.e - the control of territory with all the sources and wealth it provided This control obviously comes from conquest, or through Alliance , or through marriage, through purchase and the power of princes could be very exactly computed and known in terms of their territories and number of men that could be put under arms In 17th century Europe this began to change The size of territory still remain the important But what became more important is how the resources found in the territory could be effectively exploited. With the development fiscal system, armed forces became reasonably large and disciplined and another important factor, paid Than came the political transformation of the revolutionary era which gave the state-system the entire manpower of their country. Than came the revolution in in transport, the railways of the 19 th century makes the ideal Nations in Arms into a reality. In the early 20th century military power- at least in continental Europe was the simple combination of military power and railways. The quality of armaments was secondary importance and political intention was not taken into accountpower

During this timeThe growth of power was measured in terms of the growth of populations and communications; of the number of men that they could put under arms and transported to the battlefield to make their weight felt in the initial and also in the decisive battles This sort of perception of threat had turned Europe before 1914 into an armed camp ( arms race) This was the framework used by The German staff officers to calculate when they decided to initiate the 1914 catastrophic war. As technologies began to improve weapons-system in quality and quantity, war became increasingly a matter of competing technologies rather than competing armies. This situation led to the process known as arms race. Arms race is process to match power for power. But this is not by itself the causes of war. The causes of war remain rooted in the perception by statesman of the growth of hostile power and the fears for the restriction, if not the extinction, of their own. The fear and the threats has not changed, they may come from aggregation of territory or from dreadnoughts (big battle ship with big guns), from the numbers of men under arms, or from missile system. The means which states employ to sustain or to extend their power may have been transformed, but their objectives and obsession remain the same Arms race can be seen as a process of competitive modernization and maintaining status quo that command general support. No participant wishes, whether for reasons of pride or carefulness (prudence), to fall behind in keeping his armory up-todate. As long as there are no political causes for fear and rivalry, arm race itself need not be a stabilizing factor in the international relations. But to change the status qou can cause war. Example German naval Challenge to Britain at the beginning of the 20th century.

Tirpitz ( a German admiral (1849-1930 and also the secretary of state of the German Imperial Naval office a very powerful office of the German Imperial Navy from 1887-1916) and his associates attempted to destroy Britain hegemonial position at sea. To Britain the hegemonial was very important to her security. The British with their German diplomats repeatedly went to explain to the German government. The German Naval program was not the issue but the intention behind the program was the reason alarming the British. If the status quo was to be maintained, the German challenge had to be met. Simple..

The naval race could ended on one of the two conditions 1. Either German abandoned their program and accepts the British Naval supremacy like French did in previous century 2. Or The British give way gracefully, like they did to the United States The British naval program was, a signal of political intent (so is the German Naval program). This intent is a major element among the causes of war. It was the general perception of the growth of German power which came about from the Naval Challenge, and the fear that a German hegemony on the Continent would be the first step to a Challenge to Britain hegemony on the seas that led Britain to involve get involved in the continental conflict on the side of France and Russia Again ladies and gentlemen, but this time What made war inevitable was the growth of Spartan power and the fear this caused in Athens

In the Great War that followed, Germany was defeated but survived with none of her latent (untapped) power destroyed ( dangerous isnt it?). Britain and France hegemony could last as long Germany did not mobilize her resources to challenge it. In 1930s German began to rearm herself. This rearmament did not itself means that Hitler wanted war (if we ignore his philosophy), but what it show is that he was determined and with big popular support (the social dimension of strategy) to play a major role in the international scene. He wanted to establish a German power on an unalterable basis. This was the message he conveyed through his armament programme. In view of this, Britain reluctantly adopted her rearmament program with the intention to show that they will not submit to the German revival of power but they are prepared to fight to preserve their freedom of action. Again to paraphrase Thucydides Finally the point was reached when German strength attained a peak plain for all to see, and the German began to encroach upon Britains allies. It was at this point that Britain felt the position to be no longer tolerable and decided by starting this present war to employ all her energies in attacking and if possible destroying the power of Germany In this Great War Germanys power was totally defeated and destroyed. What the 2nd WW give birth to was not a new British Hegemony ( Britain was almost bankcrupt) but a Soviet Hegemony over the Europen-Asian land mass from Elbe to Vladisvostok and from Moscow view, the American hegemony over the rest of the world. After the second world war, according to some historian, Russian was a status quo power but the west was not. So Russia was not interested or concern to Challenge the American Global hegemony, but the west did not accept Russians in Eastern Europethe rest is what we had saw in the Cold war period

So , ladies and Gentlemen, There can be many causes to a specific war. But we would be blind if we did not recognize the phenomenon of war as a continuing activity within human society ..is all about Power. The causes which have produce war in the past are actually operating in our present day as powerfully as at the time in history ( or long long ago) If any historian will to survive a thousand years from now, they will definitely write.. What made war inevitable was the growth of Soviet power and the fear which this has caused in the United States Or, to be more fureristic and hopefully not what made war inevitable was the growth of China power and the fear which this has caused in the United States The Chines made their Empire more and more strong.(until) finally the point was reached when Chinese strength attained a peak plain for all to see and the Chinese began to encroach upon United States Allies. It was at this point that United Staes felt the position to be no longer tolerable and decided by starting the a war to employ all her energies in attacking and if possible destroying the power of China

But time has changed since Thucydides. They have changed ever since 1914 1. These were bellicist societies (society who has inclination to fight) where war was a normal, acceptable, even desirable way of settling dispute and differences. Therefore today, the question is how widely and evenly is the intense revulsion (hatred) against war characterizes our society? If war is now universally seen as being unacceptable instrument of policy, than all our analogies and discussion today is misleading and ignore it But if that revulsion is not evenly spread, they are people who still see armed force as an acceptable means of attaining their political objectives they will likey establish dominance over those which do not. Then this people will not have necessary to fight for it.right?

2. Whatever the cause of international conflict, be it atavistic (primitive) militarisms, military industrial complexes, socio-biological drives, domestic tension, we must acknowledge that all war begins with conscious and reasonable decision based on the calculation, made by both parties, that they can achieve

more by going to war than by remaining at peace . Even the most bellicist ( war mongering) society this kind calculation has to be made and even for them is not going to be an easy one. When the decision to go to war involves the likelihood that the conflict will take the form of nuclear weapon exchange where one own territory cannot be immune or protected