PhilB Posted 15 July , 2006 Share Posted 15 July , 2006 Knowing how much misery & suffering all wars bring with them, one might assume that the politicians have always strived to their utmost to avoid them. And yet they keep on coming with monotonous regularity. And who suffers and dies? Well, the ordinary men and women, who didn`t have a quarrel in the first place, not the guys who start them. Are wars generally unavoidable and will they continue to be until those who start them are the ones at most risk? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gporta Posted 15 July , 2006 Share Posted 15 July , 2006 I have the theory that if world leaders knew that they were going to suffer like the average Joe or Jane do suffer in a wartorn place , instead of watching the show in a cushy bunker with cable TV, they would think twice before starting a war. One thing that it is evident -or at least, to me- about WW1 is that all combatant countries, winners and losers alike, came out badly scarred, with their ecomomies severely affected... Regardless of the reasons that originated the war, or why it was fought for nearly five years, the outcome doesn't look positive, precisely. Gloria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 15 July , 2006 Author Share Posted 15 July , 2006 Did any of the WW1 leaders suffer personally as a result of the war? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 15 July , 2006 Share Posted 15 July , 2006 Er, yes. The Kaiser lost his throne, as did all the German kings and princelings. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was destroyed, as was the Ottoman Empire. Lower down the scale, Allenby lost his son, as did Walter Braithwaite. Farrar-Hockley, in his book "The Somme" finishes with a quote from the poet Cowper: "War's a game, which, were their subjects wise, kings would not play at." We are all guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gporta Posted 15 July , 2006 Share Posted 15 July , 2006 None of them, though, lost the breadwinner at home, as many an unprivileged people did. And the Kaiser in Holland may have lost an empire, but wasn't begging in the streets as many of the men who fought for him did. Gloria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 15 July , 2006 Share Posted 15 July , 2006 I have the theory that if world leaders knew that they were going to suffer like the average Joe or Jane do suffer in a wartorn place , instead of watching the show in a cushy bunker with cable TV, they would think twice before starting a war. At first sight you may think that this would be the case, however, it is only within the past 500 years that leaders haven't been at the front of the action. This is how leaders showed their ability and right to lead, but it did not stop them warring with a regularity that would make even the most rabid war monger in modern times shake their heads in disbelief. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAAAEd Posted 15 July , 2006 Share Posted 15 July , 2006 Knowing how much misery & suffering all wars bring with them, one might assume that the politicians have always strived to their utmost to avoid them. And yet they keep on coming with monotonous regularity. I believe it was Clauswitz who said something like, 'War is a continuation of politics by other means'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owen D Posted 15 July , 2006 Share Posted 15 July , 2006 Did any of the WW1 leaders suffer personally as a result of the war? Phil B The Czar of Russia comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Robertson Posted 15 July , 2006 Share Posted 15 July , 2006 Knowing how much misery & suffering all wars bring with them, one might assume that the politicians have always strived to their utmost to avoid them. And yet they keep on coming with monotonous regularity. Sadly the current implosion in the Middle East shows us just how easy it is for nations to be sucked into a war. Politicians are the last people I'd want in a war situation: Mothers would be preferable, after all, they can appreciate the price of man's inhumanity more than anyone else I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Take on me Posted 15 July , 2006 Share Posted 15 July , 2006 Did any of the WW1 leaders suffer personally as a result of the war? Phil B Asquith lost his son, Haig's Chief of Staff Lawrence lost his son, Foch lost his son and son in law and Ludendorff lost both his sons in law and the Tsar of Russia along with many of his associates lost everything including their lives. Yes I think rather a lot of WW1 leaders lost personally from this war. Do I think that the killing will ever stop? No, human beings fight, they always have done, and painful as this sounds I think that they always will. JGM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 16 July , 2006 Author Share Posted 16 July , 2006 Most of these "personal losses" seem to be sons, not the leaders themselves - makes you wonder whether, if it had been the mothers in power and not the fathers, the results would have been the same. Making war without your own family being at risk seems to be a modern phenomenon! Lawrence, Foch and Ludendorf were soldiers, not war starters! The Czar, I thought, was a political killing. Andy makes a good point, though, that when leaders did lead it made little difference. Perhaps they required more justification to go and risk their necks? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6th Shropshires Posted 16 July , 2006 Share Posted 16 July , 2006 War is a cancer that man kind can not seem to get rid of. I always liked the scene from All Quiet, were they are sat around talking about how the war was started, in the end they decide its best to get all the leaders in a ring and let them slog it out, last one standing is the winning Country, if only all troubles between Counties could be sorted that way. Annette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Hesketh Posted 16 July , 2006 Share Posted 16 July , 2006 Are wars generally unavoidable ........... will they continue to be until those who start them are the ones at most risk? History would suggest the former comment to be true, and the latter to have made precious little difference. Sad isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hederer Posted 16 July , 2006 Share Posted 16 July , 2006 "Sadly the current implosion in the Middle East shows us just how easy it is for nations to be sucked into a war." What's changed in the Middle East in the past 20 years? Not a helluva lot. Hizballah and the Iraelis were fighting in Lebanon 20 years ago--today they are fighting again...sad, sad, sad. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Simon Bull Posted 17 July , 2006 Share Posted 17 July , 2006 Knowing how much misery & suffering all wars bring with them, one might assume that the politicians have always strived to their utmost to avoid them. And yet they keep on coming with monotonous regularity. And who suffers and dies? Well, the ordinary men and women, who didn`t have a quarrel in the first place, not the guys who start them. Are wars generally unavoidable and will they continue to be until those who start them are the ones at most risk? Phil B All Wars are avoidable. Generally (1) One side is an aggressor and/or (2) The people of one/both sides are lied to to persuade them to fight. To prevent wars we need robust international systems to deter and punish aggressors and systems which punish politicians/leaders who lie to persuade their people to go to War. The challenge is to evolve such systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 17 July , 2006 Author Share Posted 17 July , 2006 Since our MPs are the ones who send us into wars, wouldn`t it be honourable, and better for the nation, if more had chosen to see military service, rather than do a degree in law/politics/sociology followed by a political research/bag carrier job? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Simon Bull Posted 17 July , 2006 Share Posted 17 July , 2006 I have the theory that if world leaders knew that they were going to suffer like the average Joe or Jane do suffer in a wartorn place , instead of watching the show in a cushy bunker with cable TV, they would think twice before starting a war. One thing that it is evident -or at least, to me- about WW1 is that all combatant countries, winners and losers alike, came out badly scarred, with their ecomomies severely affected... Regardless of the reasons that originated the war, or why it was fought for nearly five years, the outcome doesn't look positive, precisely. Gloria I agree with you Gloria, save that I would suspect that the USA economy did quite well out of the War, selling munitions in the earlier years when they were not taking part. That is not necessarily to criticise the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Simon Bull Posted 17 July , 2006 Share Posted 17 July , 2006 Er, yes. We are all guilty. That's a bit harsh Steven. Groups which oppose War cannot be said to be complicit in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyHollinger Posted 17 July , 2006 Share Posted 17 July , 2006 I often ask my class that if one is justified in war, why not the rich and politically connected do the fighting? If all the CEOs and major executives, Politicians - all of them had to donate their families and fortunes to the cause (100% war time profit tax) ... I am sure we'd find another way ... But ... there are wars where it is truly life or death ... the Wars of the American Frontier spring to mind. Two civilizations at different levels can not share the same land ... Besides ... War is the ultimate "Game" ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 17 July , 2006 Author Share Posted 17 July , 2006 ... But ... there are wars where it is truly life or death ... the Wars of the American Frontier spring to mind. Two civilizations at different levels can not share the same land ... Besides ... War is the ultimate "Game" ... Andy, I assume those would be what we know as Indian Wars. Sounds like life or death for the Indians but just somewhere better to live for the settlers? Sort of economic migrants versus established residents. The same as the Mexicans trying to get in now and being forcibly kept out? War is indeed the ultimate game. For the players - not the pawns! For the pawns it`s deadly serious. I like the proposal for the CEOs et al to do the fighting. No weapons or something simple like edged weapons only? Or do you allow firearms? Make wonderful television! Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hederer Posted 17 July , 2006 Share Posted 17 July , 2006 "I like the proposal for the CEOs et al to do the fighting. No weapons or something simple like edged weapons only? Or do you allow firearms? Make wonderful television!" Phil B Phil, It's been suggested. In All's Quiet on the Western Front, the German soldiers suggest that all the King's and diplomats dress in their underwear and fight it out with clubs. Tickets will be sold. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 17 July , 2006 Author Share Posted 17 July , 2006 Well, Paul, whether you fight it that way or with millions of conscripts it`s still a case of might is right! You`re just as likely to get a just result either way! Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gporta Posted 17 July , 2006 Share Posted 17 July , 2006 I agree with you Gloria, save that I would suspect that the USA economy did quite well out of the War, selling munitions in the earlier years when they were not taking part. That is not necessarily to criticise the USA. Simon, While writing my previous post I considered for a moment to mention the phrase "with the exception of the USA", in the sense that the United States entered the war in 1917, so they didn't suffer the loss of men that, say, the British Empire, Germany, France, Serbia, Russia, The Austro-hungarian Empire, etc. Neither did they suffer a war on their own territory... And certainly the European War was a boost to the US (and other neutral countries' industry). However I felt that adding the phrase might be interpreted in the sense I was underrating the American contribution to the Allied side, which wasn't my intention. But you're right that US industrialists benefited from the situation. Changing the subject, I feel that Germany, or Japan as countries, have been faring much better as a country in the 60 years they has been out of war than it could have ever become by military conquest: the positive conclusion is "conquer them with your produces, not with your weapons" Gloria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doogal Posted 17 July , 2006 Share Posted 17 July , 2006 In the broadest of terms, I would suggest we only hear about the wars that happen - not so much is said about the ones that are avoided. OK, so this is a very broad point, but is it worth considering a few that were averted? GB attacking the US in during the 1860's - that never happened, so is happily forgotten in common memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hederer Posted 17 July , 2006 Share Posted 17 July , 2006 In the broadest of terms, I would suggest we only hear about the wars that happen - not so much is said about the ones that are avoided. OK, so this is a very broad point, but is it worth considering a few that were averted? GB attacking the US in during the 1860's - that never happened, so is happily forgotten in common memory. Cuban Missile Crisis... Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.29d4195f801e5a5004f52840449366a7.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now