Why War?

With a good friend I yesterday attended a lecture at the University of Graz, entitled: 

Warum Krieg?

Überlegungen zu Krieg

und Gewalt aus Kultur-

Soziologischer Perspective

Why War?

Thoughts about War

and Force from a Culture-

Sociological perspective.

I spent a most interesting hour, listening to Professor, Dr. Sabine Haring-Mosbacher speak eloquently about "Force", but little about "War" or the "Whys", the Reasons, for War.

Of course, one might say, that 'War' is 'Force' in its purest form and therefore Professor Mosbacher spoke indirectly also about War. Be this as it may. I enjoyed the Professor's lecture and learnt from it.  In preparation for this Lecture I did a little thinking and a little research and I came up with the following:

"Why War?"

This question inevitably leads me to the even more important consideration: "How to avoid War?"

In order to consider 'avoidance'  we must, I believe, first contemplate the 'Why'.

The starting point for such considerations must be an examination of the relationship between "Right" and "Might". Whereby the "Might" could, or should be replaced by the word: "Force".

Conflicts of Interests and the consequent Confrontations may be resolved by civilized discussions, or, as has been shown more frequently in the course of human history, by the use of force, brute force.

A resolution of the conflict of interests is sought, but rarely achieved.

In the beginnings of human history, such conflicts, mostly questions of geographic superiority,  were settled by "muscle-power". Soon Man discovered the use of tools to be more effective  than the naked fist and he diligently began using those, from the sharp stone to the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.

It was, of course, most often the stronger power, or the power who believed itself to be stronger, who commenced hostilities.

Economic issues were not exclusively the reasons for War. 

Often there were religious disputes which made the use of force and the killing of the opponent  seem desirable and unavoidable. 

It is, however, my opinion that in many cases religious differences were used  as a pretext by the leadership to whip  the common citizens  into a frenzy of killing. 

If a Duke or a King had asked his people, to move to war in order for Him to enrich his own coffers,  he would likely not have reached the same degree of enthusiasm, as if he had told them that this herd of "unbelieving zealots" was about to desecrate the memory of their God and His Son.

How else would it be possible to whip the "great mass" into a frenzy and, almost foaming at the mouth, begin a wave of killing?

This then brings to mind the huge congregation in, for instance, Nürnberg, during which Hitler or Göbels called for "Total War" although the loss of this killing spree was already written large on the walls and on the bombastic columns surrounding the square, and the hundreds of thousands assembled, screaming "Heil" until their throats were raw.

It also brings to mind the Italian and Austrian soldiers, who, during the First World War, allowed themselves to be driven into hopeless battles to conquer the next mountain top in order to place another medal of bravery upon the chest of the General, who sent them to their death. 

I think of the brutality of the American Civil War and the recent killings in the battles of the Balkan wars.

How, let me ask it again, is this possible?

I believe, and I am not alone in this belief, that there is an instinct, a compulsion deep within the human psyche, which compels the bearer to hate and destroy, and which turns the many into the serfs and henchmen of the evil minded agitator.

Thus it is and it will remain so until some fundamental insight, enlightenment, seeps through to the basic understanding of man's own psyche.

In or about 1884, in what was then Persia, the religious founder, Baha'u'llah said:

"The World is but one Country and Mankind its Citizens."

He also called for the establishment of an 

"International House of Justice", 

which was to arbitrate all international disputes. 

In order for such an Institution to be successful, all countries would have to be prepared to subjugate their own interests to its judgment.

We recognize, of course, the difficulties connected with such forfeiture of  sovereignty, but in the final analysis, it must come to pass, in spite of language, cultural, even racial differences, that such sovereignty must first be limited and finally abolished.

The Democratic, Constitutional State must become the Democratic Constitutional Continent and finally must be extended to the Democratic Constitutional World.

In a letter to Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud wrote: The abolishing of wars is surely the highest duty of today's mankind, because "every human has a right for his own life, and because wars destroy hoping and promising lives and because wars denigrate man* and force him* against his better judgment and will to kill other human beings.

In his lengthy and thoughtful answer, Albert Einstein replied: 

"As long as international conflicts are not subject to arbitration and the enforcement of decisions arrived at by arbitration is not guaranteed, and as long as war production is not prohibited, we may be sure that war will follow upon war.

Unless our Civilisation achieves the moral strength to overcome this evil, it is bound to share the fate of former civilisations: Decline and Decay".

Bertstravels

is not as smart 

as the above quoted 3 gentlemen,

but he agrees fully 

with their expressed opinions!

* I am certain that Sigi, in his mind, included the words "and women"  and "him and her"...

In Sigi's days, Men went to war, while women stayed home and tended the fire in the hearth.