Skip to main content

Causes of War (and of one in particular)

Without a lot of throat clearing, here are some thoughts.

1. In general, the causes of wars between nations states always involve competition for resources, and the breakdown of earlier means for mediating those conflicts non-violently. Look at it this way: A new war comes about at the end of a precious period of peace, or at least relative peace. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a new war at all, just a continuation of the everlasting one, right? Also, I think it safe to assume for simplicity's sake at least that resource conflicts are constant. Wants are infinite, resources are limited! So ... a war begins both because specific resource conflicts exist and because mediation mechanisms that until then had kept the peace have broken down.

2. In Europe, the First World War came about largely as a byproduct of the scramble for Africa. The major powers each wanted to gobble up large parts of Africa for their own use, for mining, for markets, for prestige, etc. This brought them into repeated crisis, although for a long time in the late 19th and early 20th centuries they were able to mediate those crises.

3. The two leading powers, Great Britain and Germany, were each through this period becoming increasingly confident. Their confidence was in part a consequence of the ties they had built up diplomatically and because of the great fleet of Dreadnoughts each was developing. Consider the phrase "dread nought" behind the name of the class of battleships involved. Their dread of nought meant that they were each less inclined to compromise over time. The process of mediation, which entailed mutual fear, was based on cultural memories of the horrors of the Napoleonic era, but that memory was fading and the fear was breaking down.

4. The final crisis, when it came, did NOT especially involve Africa as the precursor crises had. Still, the point is that the mediation possibilities available in those earlier crises had dried up. The system had become so fragile it could not survive a crisis created by the secessionist forces within the Austrian Empire.


  1. Christopher, I don't deny anything you write here, but, in focusing on competition for resources, I believe that you discount the irrational factors that lead to war. One such factor is the desire for power for its own sake. People go into politics because of their will to power, and, once they gain power, that will remains. I believe that anyone who seeks political office ought to automatically be disqualified for it; we could put that in the Constitution. (Have you ever thought of such a constitutional amendment as a way to bring about the anarchy you desire?)

  2. To some extent I made room for irrational factors when I mentioned above that "prestige" was part of the reason the Scramble for Africa was as intense as it was. A patch of desert or marshland that was of no real resource use might nonetheless look good on a map, with a certain country's flag planted there, from the point of view of the egos of that country's elite.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…