A.Mookerjee
Banned Member
Why do nations engage in warfare?
I have come to believe, that people use the option of the stick, when they believe that the stick is an option to be used to threaten others, whether for legitimate reasons(in the view of the stick wielder), or not.
Nations, if compared to such people, take recourse to the stick for defensive reasons because they see no other recourse to approach. As and when they develop their military power, they may decide to use their military forces, in situations, where the military option may not be the only recourse.
Why are affairs of the military such as these assumptions and examples? Simple, because all military conflicts have been used not judiciously, either by one party to the conflict, and nor by the other.
The German forces were seen as the aggressor by France during the First Great War, and yet the French military took more than her share of retribution from the German nation, in the view of that nation, after the war. The world has always had leaders, who saw their powerful military as a tool to be used. There have been very few nations, who have not used their military advantage in any capacity, in a conflict of interests, with other nations. The Roman empire justified not only the existence, but the actions of the Roman army. So did Napoleon, in a vein similar to the Roman justification, but not similar in appearance.
I have come to believe, that Hitler, Napoleon, and all other leaders who initiated the act of war, believed that they had no other recourse. The nations who see their armed forces as not capable, take recourse to make their force more potent. How did Germany create a great army from the rubble of the empire on the eve of the Second World War? Once having acquired great military power, Hitler saw no other recourse, but to use it.
Poland was given the land of Germany, by the Allied powers, after the First Great War. Just as Poland had occupied German land, after the war, Germany occupied Poland during World War Two.
How justified was the action against Germany, after the First Great War? Perhaps, the stronger force sees it's military option, as the only option. What then, is the other option? Not to see the military option as the only option, at all times, even in times of war, but as one of the options.
All the leader's who led their armies to war, abdicated responsibility, first toward themselves, then toward others by being unable to see other recourse.
I started this thread, because it occurred to me, that having a military, is as dangerous for the possessor of military powers, as it is for the enemy of such a nation.
I have come to believe, that people use the option of the stick, when they believe that the stick is an option to be used to threaten others, whether for legitimate reasons(in the view of the stick wielder), or not.
Nations, if compared to such people, take recourse to the stick for defensive reasons because they see no other recourse to approach. As and when they develop their military power, they may decide to use their military forces, in situations, where the military option may not be the only recourse.
Why are affairs of the military such as these assumptions and examples? Simple, because all military conflicts have been used not judiciously, either by one party to the conflict, and nor by the other.
The German forces were seen as the aggressor by France during the First Great War, and yet the French military took more than her share of retribution from the German nation, in the view of that nation, after the war. The world has always had leaders, who saw their powerful military as a tool to be used. There have been very few nations, who have not used their military advantage in any capacity, in a conflict of interests, with other nations. The Roman empire justified not only the existence, but the actions of the Roman army. So did Napoleon, in a vein similar to the Roman justification, but not similar in appearance.
I have come to believe, that Hitler, Napoleon, and all other leaders who initiated the act of war, believed that they had no other recourse. The nations who see their armed forces as not capable, take recourse to make their force more potent. How did Germany create a great army from the rubble of the empire on the eve of the Second World War? Once having acquired great military power, Hitler saw no other recourse, but to use it.
Poland was given the land of Germany, by the Allied powers, after the First Great War. Just as Poland had occupied German land, after the war, Germany occupied Poland during World War Two.
How justified was the action against Germany, after the First Great War? Perhaps, the stronger force sees it's military option, as the only option. What then, is the other option? Not to see the military option as the only option, at all times, even in times of war, but as one of the options.
All the leader's who led their armies to war, abdicated responsibility, first toward themselves, then toward others by being unable to see other recourse.
I started this thread, because it occurred to me, that having a military, is as dangerous for the possessor of military powers, as it is for the enemy of such a nation.