Essay on The Cause of War: Stoessinger’s Misperception Framework

During March of 1954, a crucial French force was surrounded by the Communist Vietnamese forces at the Fortress of Dien Bien Phu in northern Vietnam. The French had requested the United States to intervene, however, Eisenhower decided against action. Many officials, such as Secretary Dulles and Vice President Nixon supported nuclear intervention, but Eisenhower was concerned about entering the Indochinese war so soon after the Korean War and the likely possibility of British not supporting the

During the course of this analytical paper, we will look at the impact of warfare on world societies and people's consciousness, during the period of the 1500s in world history, called the Early Modern Period; also, we will discuss the consequences of the Great War. Additionally, apart from studying the altering methods of warfare and their magnitude, we will look up to different motivations of statesmen and peoples who declare wars or engage in several types of violent actions towards certain societies. Throughout the paper, we will stretch any pertinent evidence at appropriate points of what war leaders, intellectuals and common citizens view war and violence, which they experience during their life. Some of the examples include the Arabs that vastly expanded the world of Islam, yet were traditionally predatory in nature, which benefited more from the taxation of the conquered than from their conversion. There are also examples like the Mongol Empire, which was too, predatory, but differently from the Arab

Although many people assume the motivations for war are determined by a territorial protection, a number of scholars have added other motivations for understanding why war occurs, among these historians one is a conspicuous example his name is Howard Zinn. Zinn has exposed that many countries go to war in order to bring economic prosperity to their region this need for gain in turn causes many of the upper class of that region to acquire fantastic levels of wealth, many of these powerful figures have denied these claims, Zinn,in reaction to these claims uses paradigm example, WW1, as a means for discrediting the upper class who incessantly deny profits during war.

However, given the circumstances, Truman’s methods of dealing with Asia were principally justified. To start, it is commonly argued that the United States should have interfered in the Chinese civil war, as the KMT’s defeat marked a new, large communist threat. Admittedly, if the US had sufficient resources to ensure halt of communism in both Europe and Asia, this would have been a logical decision. However, the US did not have these capabilities, so it came down to a matter of priority. Reallocation of resources to both Asia and Europe could have been a potentially dangerous move, as both fronts could be lost from resources being spread too thin. At any rate, Truman came to the conclusion that European recovery was a higher priority for US funds. His judgement proved to be equitable as the US had great success in deterring communist expansion past eastern-Europe. Additionally, in Asia Truman had to deal with the Korean War, which had been declared as a surprise invasion. Having to act decisively, Truman pledged Douglas MacArthur in command of the US troops. After losing a large amount of ground in South Korea, MacArthur launched a counteroffensive and managed to push back the North Koreans to the 38th parallel (default border). After a botched attempt at invading North Korea due to the intervention of China, a stalemate was reached at the 38th parallel. Republicans condemned Truman for failing to achieve a military

The book Why Nations Go To War by John G Stoessinger and chapters one through three really go into detail on how some of the biggest wars in history have started or what goes on behind all the fighting. It is really showing what happens behind the scenes. It goes into detail on how each war started and how each different country involved handled it. Each chapter goes into detail about each major event leading up to the war. This book may not seem interesting at first but once you start your reading it gets more and more interesting.

There are moments in our history where the citizens of the world stand up and for their beliefs, their honor, and themselves. They come together to reform the existing government that is holding them back from achieving their desired lifestyle. When this occurs, most likely, war is inevitable to follow. When war comes to a country, death and destruction is destined. Leaders and rules change, but the pride of its citizens prevails and becomes

The United States played a very crucial role in the conflict that occurred in Southeast Asia between the U.S.-backed democratic South Vietnam, and Soviet-backed communist North Vietnam. Following the defeat of its French administration in 1954, North Vietnam, led by Communist leader Ho Chi Minh, wanted to reunify the country with the help of its rebel allies in the south, known as the Viet Cong. Out of this chaos emerged a difficult situation for the United States, as Cold War sentiments were present within this proxy war between the two powerful nations and the third party of Vietnam. The United States wanted to support Ngo Dinh Diem, leader of South Vietnam, in order to ensure his government would not fall into ruins and be taken control by the communists, but President Eisenhower was also hesitant to get his troops involved in this large scale conflict in Southeast Asia.

“The Cause of War” is a book written by Australian author Geoffrey Blainey. The book is a collection of studies from wars since 1700’s and it analysis the relation of rivaling nations. The book is divided in four parts it starts discussing the weakness behind the current theories of peace, it then moves to talk the “ingredients” which are key for a nation to determine whether they will go to war or not. Third part of the group is about some misleading theories of war, and the last part just deals with the variety of war.

Historically, there has been consistent disagreement between political philosophers regarding the possibility of a justification of war. Theorists from Grotius to Gandhi have from time immemorial argued about whether violence can ever be sanctioned as a viable recourse for preventing evil. History itself, at various times, seems to offer lessons regarding the complexity of the issue—demonstrating both the human capacity, if unchecked, to cause immense destruction and evil and the inherent destruction that accompanies the common means of using war and violence to rid the world of such evils. However, it is clear that neither

In his writing, he stated that war is intrinsically vast, communal (or political) and violent. It is an actual, widespread and deliberate armed conflict between political communities, motivated by a sharp disagreement over governance” (p.135)

The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.

Throughout much of the history of civilizations, states have declared war for land, valuables, and resources. In the course of the mid-20th century and the 21st century, ascendant super powers have invaded foreign lands for resources such as oil, and weapons companies have profited from the ongoing cycle of war these super powers promote. The populations of these states have been fed lies vis-à-vis the media; propagandizing these “rogue nations” and promoting an ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality, to garner support for these armed conflicts. War is our primordial instinct, as humans are territorial and aggressive. That is our nature, and by looking at events in our history, one may see that war appears to be timeless and inevitable.

“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. This famous quote is from James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., who served as the 39th President of the United States. It implies that war can be justified under strict circumstances where it can be necessary, but it is still abhorrent. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Justification refers to the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. War brings many negative and catastrophic impacts not just to the country, but to the people living in the country as well, which this paper

War has been a part of human culture since it's birth. It has led to a great many massacres and has shown us the evil that exists within the souls of humanity. Some have even gone as far as saying that war is human nature. To better understand the reasons behind war and how it affects others, I've examined several different societies and cultures so as to better understand the necessity of war and see the cause of their external war attitude. To do so, different variables from two topics (military institutions and external war attitude) were matched up and crossed so as to look into the answers to these questions. The variables were then calculated and through these graphs, I was able to find different societies in which

Category of ‘necessary’ and ‘sufficient’ do not cover all the possible causes of war. There are unpredictable causes of war that do not fall into these two categories such as a desire of a statesman to annex territory belonging to neighboring states. As the theory of the war varies among the leaders,