Skip to main content

Causes of World War II

Image result for Admiral Mahan

Again I'm cribbing from something I wrote for Yahoo!Answers.

The question was,  "10 reasons why world war 2 started?"

My answer, composed rather off the cuff, ran as follows:

I'm glad you allow for causative pluralism. I'll get you half way there with five causes:

1. The inherent dynamism of fascistic nationalisms, which need to prove their superiority to other nations in order to secure their domestic support;
2. In Japan (which wasn't really fascistic in the same sense as its European allies) a collective inferiority complex, which left them wanting to prove themselves at least as powerful as the western imperialists operating in east Asia;
3. The widespread theories of Admiral Mahan on the centrality of naval power in history, and the superior position in which island-nations are placed for empire building. This, too, inspired Japan and helped guide other nations too in a disastrous direction;
4. The excesses of the Versailles Treaty that the victorious powers had forced upon Germany in 1919, and the bitterness caused by that excess;
5. The long reign of Hegelian philosophy in German intellectual life, and the central role that philosophy assigned to nation-states, and to warfare as the tribunal of disputes between them.


Going beyond what I wrote there....

I'm not sure whether this is consistent with the various things I've said here about causes-of-war. I put it here precisely so as to keep myself from brushing under the rug any inconsistency that may exist.

And that's Admiral Mahan in the photo at top. He taught that Britain had been dominant for so long largely because it is an island nation, so it doesn't need to divide its navy. France has always had to divide its navy, maintaining a separate Mediterranean and Atlantic fleet (and Britain has controlled Gibraltar). The idea probably helped inspired Theodore Roosevelt to push for a Canal that could unite the two coasts of the US and that would be within US control -- so we wouldn't be France. It certainly encouraged Japanese ideas that it was now their turn to create an Empire analogous to Britain's.

But the Japanese were also perceptive about how Mahan's ideas had become obsolete. For his focus on the need to concentrate the fleet to make decisive use of it (or to hold it as a very public deterrent)  became dangerous as air power became a factor, and the Japanese demonstrated this against an over-concentrated US Pacific fleet in December 1941.


  1. Christopher, Your #1 seems to me at best partially true. The German people did not lead Hitler to war; he led them to war. No doubt they responded favorably to his demagoguery about Germany's having been stabbed in the back and entitled to vindication. But this does not mean that he needed to go to war to secure or maintain their domestic support. I suspect that murdering Jews and communists would have been adequate for that purpose.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

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…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …