Is War a Problem Solver?

[Blackguard_]

No. I should not care about the past; I should only care about the future, and so should my neighbours.

And the past determines the present which determines the future. As a member of a historical religion, you should know you can't just act like the past never happened.

Obsessing about some presumed injustice between people long dead whom I never even knew and when times were entirely different, about some battle lost or won centuries ago, about some piece of dirt lost or won centuries ago, about some man murdered centuries ago, is flat out unhealthy. Not that I'm terribly surprised how far back in the history some folks are willing to go to find an animosity on which to hang themselves over and over again. Some people have not yet learned. That's why wars are still alive and well and doing profitable business all over the world.

So why the tone that the West was getting what it deserved for some historical injustice?

Was that how it went? Or which was first, the hen or the egg? "Europe" did her dirty part by flooding -- invading and subjugating and making colonies of -- Islamic countries...............What goes around comes around, I suppose.

Like I said, the world was not formed in 1800.
times were different place back then.
You see back when the West commited those injustices it was on the heals of a millenium of Muslim injustice to the West. In 1800 Ottoman expansion and the Battle of Vienna was in as much memory as late 19th century British/French imperialism is today. Your chicken and egg analogy is flawed as muslim injustice to Europe preceded the reverse.

The present fades back into the past, there is no clear boundary between them. And history is often cyclic, muslim-christian wars are an excellent example of both the 'cycle of history' and the 'cycle of violence'.
Yes, the cycle must be broken, but you seem to claim it ok for Islam to continue it.

Where do you draw the line for avenging a historical wrong?

No, I'm not an Iraqi;

I know, I figured flying its flag meant the issues conscerning it are important to you.

if anything, we all are Iraqis today. And as so many peoples and nations before, Iraqis are again digging up old grudges over which to shed some more blood. And it will do them as much good as clinging to the skeletons has ever done to anyone, which is no good at all.

Does a cause being old necessarily make it unworthy? Not that many old casues are worth dying for, but some are.

 

[Verv]

I would just like to add to this conversation this idea:

You are so set on the notion that we can solve things through negotiation and peace, yet do you see how much our own negotiation of this very issue fails terribly?

How would have German and Japanese imperialism been curbed through any other means than the direct dismantling of power?

 

[ScottishJohn]

No, it is not true that it was European actions that pushed Japan to imperialism. Japan has had a rich heritage of invading Korea -- why? For the simple reason of greed, as another poster notes, for the sheer reason that other nations have something that they want, so they try to take it.

Hardly. The only history I can find is two seperate failed Korean invasions of Japan under the Mongols in 1274 and 1281, (foiled by a storm, the source of the phrase KamiKaze), and then two similarly failed invasions of Korea by the Japanese in the 16th century. From the beginning of the 17th century Japan shut up shop. In fact, Japan was an isolated nation until in 1853 Perry's fleet arrived in Japan with the intention to 'end the nation's self-imposed isolation and open it to trade'. At this point the shogunate was overthrown and Japan adopted a western style government, legal system and military. They also began to persue a western style empire. In the First Sino Japanese war (sparked amongst other things by blossoming Japanese colonial interests in Korea) they took Manchuria, Taiwan and the Pescadores, and put the frighteners on the west, stirring up concern that Japan was going to threaten western exploitation of the east. The Russo Japanese war saw Russia handing over the lease to Port Stanley, the southern half of Sakhalin Island, and agreed to evacuate from Manchuria and recognise Korea as being firmly under Japanese influence. Japanese Imperial interests in Korea can only be stretched back as far as 1876, with the Treaty of Kanghwa, a western style 'unequal' treaty this granted extraterritorial rights and opened up three of Koreas ports to Japanese trade. This was followed in 1895 by the assasination of Empress Myeongseong, and the events of the Sino Japanese war. At the end of the war Chinese interests in Korea were swept away, clearing the path for Japan. After the Russo Japanese war achieved a similar withdrawal of Russian interests in Korea, the US and Japan agreed that Japan would leave the Phillipines to US rule, and would in turn be given a free hand in Korea. Korea became a protectorate by the end of 1905, and was formally annexed in 1910. All this was driven by the end of Japanese isolation, her adoption of Western practises. It would have been much easier to prevent Japanese imperialism around the negotiating table if we were not engaged in exactly the same exploitation. The US sign away Korea, to maintain their interest in the Phillipines.

Ideally, we could solve our problems at negotiating tables and there would never be subsequent wars -- theoretically a group of Etruscan tribes in 6th century BC Italy could have created a Rome that was a loose, federation of amazing, great, super-pacifist hippie nations...

So much more is possible now through negotiation, whereas in the past it was difficult to achieve much. You need to compare like with like. The bare minimum is that we give the negotiation table a chance, at the end of the day, that is where we return to at the end of a war, and if we can skip the whole war phase then that is better for everyone.

But we do not live in Narnia.

I don't remember them being particularly peaceful?

How would you ever successfully negotiate something like the Israeli-Palestinian situation?

Where to start. We have this situation now because we acted poorly in the beginning. Under the British mandate we utilised Jews in night squads to brutalise the arab population. We involved Israel in our own colonial mess in the Suez crisis. We have done pretty much all we could to stir up the mess there, and yes, it is going to be difficult to solve. However what it has proven is that 50+ years of violence have achieved a grand total of nothing. Negotiation is the only tool we have.

How would you determine proper reparations to please all parties at Versailles?

Well, it would have started with a realistic proportion of blame being laid on each country involved.

These things are impossible, and someone is going to see great unjustice in your action no matter what.

So why bother trying? Just give them a bloody nose and get on with it? Unfortuneatly the bloody nose approach has a tendency to backfire, as it did at Versaille. Noone said negotiation was easy, but it works. A workable peace treaty could have been reached at Versaille.

Diplomacy is a method to deal with things... But often times your diplomacy becomes Neville Chamberlain and the politicians of Europe handing over the Sudetenland to Adolf Hitler, then acting surprised when he invades Poland for similar reasons.

There is a difference between negotiation and capitulation. Chamberlain and his pals handed everything Hitler wanted to him on plate. The fact remains that they would never have been in that situation had their predeccessors done their jobs properly at Versaille.

At the end of the day, whether you fight or not, it all comes back to negotiation, peace treaties are negotiated, the ones which are imposed usually lead to future conflict.

 

[Kalevalatar]

And the past determines the present which determines the future. As a member of a historical religion, you should know you can't just act like the past never happened.

As a member of a historical religion, all I need to know is Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ told us to bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances we may have against one another.

Like I said, the world was not formed in 1800.
times were different place back then.

And I wasn't talking about the year 1800. I was talking talking about our post-WWII world and pointing out that the fact France today has over million citizens who can claim Algerian origin stems directly from the fact that Algeria for decades before and after WWII was a French colony. Morocco was a French protectorate; as a consequence, some million French (Muslims) today can claim Moroccan origin.

What I find incredibly sad is that you are invoking a battle that took place, what, 1200 years ago, in order to try to persuade me why I should dislike my very flesh and blood Muslim neighbour with whom I exchange hellos and nice days.

To know ones history and know what events have shaped our world for what it is today is a completely different thing from trying to march out old skeletons -- "millenium of Muslim injustices" -- to justify today's actions and policies. "The Battle of Vienna" or whatever, whatever "Muslim injustice" that may or may not have taken place 789 years ago but who cares anyway, has nothing to do with my Muslim neighbour. You are wasting your time trying to convince me otherwise.

Where do you draw the line for avenging a historical wrong?

I draw it right here. "Do not avenge yourselves" and "repay no evil for evil."

I can't change you; I can't change "them." I can, however, change my own way of thinking and how I react to the world.

Does a cause being old necessarily make it unworthy? Not that many old casues are worth dying for, but some are.

And I disagree. Some causes may be worth dying for, but no cause is worth killing for.

 

[ScottishJohn]

You really are lost.

I'm sure we can manage to conduct this discussion without stooping to this kind of nonsense.

War stopped nazi expansion as well as the holocaust. There may still be anti semitism, yet Germany was stripped of its ability to take away the lives of millions of innocent people THANKS TO WAR.

Not really. The ability of Germans to take lives remained intact, and those who were so inclined found employment on the Stasi, which was just as brutal as the Gestapo. Half of Europe whose innocent lives had been saved due to war were handed over to another psychopath, hardly an improvement for them. How many did Stalin kill? Nazi expansionism may have been stopped, Western Europe may have been freed, but Eastern Europe remained occupied for another 50 years. We just swapped the dictators and the threat.

Law is NOTHING if not enforced. The south refused to submit and the result was the splitting of the union. The war reunited the states and enforced the ban on slavery. Without the war, that law you spoke of would not mean a thing. And you think that racism was increased thanks to the war? The very idea of racism is bad enough and existed before the war. The difference was that after the war, no matter how racist you were, YOU COULD NOT OWN SLAVES.

Nope but until the 1950s you could treat black people like they were slaves pretty much with impunity. The war skimmed the surface of the problem. The more productive, non violent, civil rights movement got to grips with the root of the problem.

The right to bare arms, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the abolition of cruel and unusual punishment, religious freedom, imminent domain, right to a speedy trial, right to an attorney, the right to vote, and so on.

At the time we didn't have these rights either, we have them now, somehow we managed to achieve this without any war.

If you cant tell the difference between a president and a king, you are truely sorry.

There is practically no difference. One is elected by a bunch of colleges, the other is by their birth. In fact the President tends to interfere in politics more than the Queen currently does.

And before you go off and say that there is no difference, consider the congress. Recently, president Bush decided that he would veto any attempt to stop the dubai port deal. The people would not stand for it and as a result, the deal was killed. The same thing happened when Bush tried to get his friend into the supreme court. He figured that he could do what he wanted because of the support he had, but it didnt work.

So why have him at all? Why not let congress do their job and keep the President as a figurehead remote from politics? Its all the same thing.

As for the taxes, they aren't that high. In fact, it is the upper class that pays most of the taxes in America. (that wont last though if Bush keeps spending so much)

Where is the accountability? Would the democrats spend any less? Do either party spend WISELY?

Ok, lets try this nice and slow. Lets say a man breaks into my house with the intent to harm me and my family. I see him before he sees me and I shoot him dead. Tell me, will his ghost return to kill me and my family? Simple fact, dead men cant retalliate.

So what happens when his family turn up and shoot you? (when you move your hypothesis back into the realm of international politics this is not just likely it is the norm.) Violence solves nothing. Even in post war situations, we have to use negotiation to work out the peace. Sometimes we do it well, other times not so well.

 

[spitfire07]

The main thing that comes out of war is the dead. Ya the nazis were stopped by it, but that was nearly 60 years ago.

 

[k]

That's what the US did to Japan in the summer of 1941. The result was Pearl Harbor.

Who was Germany's largest trading partner in 1939? France. Yet, when France and Britain threatened war on September 1st, after the German invasion of Poland, Hitler wasn't deterred.

During the War of 1812, the British blockaded American ports, ruining the economy of New England. Despite New England's demands to end the war, the war went on for several more months.

The US placed embargoes against Japan well before the summer of 41'. The US also needed PH to happen in order to justify getting involved in WWII....just as the Bush admin needed 9/11 to justify invading Iraq/Afghanistan...and soon an extension on Iran. History does repeat itself.

Hitler wasn't deterred because he had bigger plans.

These two comparisons do not work in relation to Japan.

 

[k]

I know its been said a million times probably (maybe, I didnt read the whole thread) but here are some examples.

Problem: Nazis. war fixed that.
Problem: Slavery. War fixed that too.
Problem: King George. War fixed that.

I could go on and on but that would take too long. The simple fact that has been proven throughout history is that force has solved more problems than any other means.

Funny, I can show anyone Nazis, Slavery, and of course we live under King George so those examples are not very useful.

That last statement is very interesting...especially considering how Jesus solved many problems without using force. (uh oh...I can feel it...here it comes...the 'well what about when he overturned the tables!!!??')

 

[k]

One of the main motivating reasons for the attack on Pearl Harbor was BECAUSE of an embargo we had on the Japanese due to the sacking of Manchuria. Their economy was being strangled and they reacted as a predictably aggressive, imperialist state would:

Bide their time, find a good opportunity, then attack us.

Sometimes embargoes work with minimal success -- it has kept North Korea at bay for 50+ years... But think of this: if we would finish up, millions would not die in famine over the years.

Sometimes embargoes entirely fail, such as in the case of Imperial Japan.

An embargo is a situational application that does not always expereince full success.

Not quite...the Japanese knew the embargoes were simply a pre-cursor to another US invasion. Admiral Yamamoto, having studied in the US, knew the Japanese military could not defeat the US...therefore the only hope was to extend Japan's autonomy as far as possible. This meant striking first and retreating.

To suggest that Japan had an imperial agenda on the US (by saying they reacted as an imperial and aggressive state would) is to reveal a serious gap of comprehension about what was happening between the US and Japan. Not trying to be rude...but seriously...there's 6,000 miles of ocean between Japan and the US...they barely made it to Hawaii...they NEVER had a chance of making it to the US.

 

[k]

So who are the three that voted for me to be among first casualties? Yes, I could have made the poll public but chose to trust people would have the integrity to stand behind their decisions.

 

[k]

I'm surprised that no one posted either of those, yet.

ROTFL...can I quote Bart Simpson too?

 

[Agrippa]

The US placed embargoes against Japan well before the summer of 41'.

Um...so you went and proved my point. Economic sanctions will not always work.

Also, the embargoes prior to the summer of 1941 were minor, limiting access to war material. The August '41 embargo was the big one that forced Japan into action.

The US also needed PH to happen in order to justify getting involved in WWII....just as the Bush admin needed 9/11 to justify invading Iraq/Afghanistan...and soon an extension on Iran. History does repeat itself.

FDR knew the US had to get into the war against Germany; he didn't want the US distracted by Japan. Pearl Harbor was the last thing he wanted.

Hitler wasn't deterred because he had bigger plans.

Again, you're proving my point; economic sanctions will not always work.

Not quite...the Japanese knew the embargoes were simply a pre-cursor to another US invasion.

I would love to see this evidence for an American invasion of Japan that has been missed by historians over the last fifty years.

Admiral Yamamoto, having studied in the US, knew the Japanese military could not defeat the US...therefore the only hope was to extend Japan's autonomy as far as possible. This meant striking first and retreating.

To suggest that Japan had an imperial agenda on the US (by saying they reacted as an imperial and aggressive state would) is to reveal a serious gap of comprehension about what was happening between the US and Japan. Not trying to be rude...but seriously...there's 6,000 miles of ocean between Japan and the US...they barely made it to Hawaii...they NEVER had a chance of making it to the US.

The Japanese did have an imperial agenda on the US, specifically the Philippines and possibly Hawaii (though it most likely would have been returned to the US in a peace deal in the very unlikely event it was taken).

What Japan feared was the US objecting to its conquest of the Far East and staging attacks on convoys using bombers and subs based in the Philippines. They didn't fear a pre-emptive attack by the US; they feared the US coming the support of its allies in the Far East after Japan attacked those allies.

 

[k]

Um...so you went and proved my point. Economic sanctions will not always work.

Also, the embargoes prior to the summer of 1941 were minor, limiting access to war material. The August '41 embargo was the big one that forced Japan into action.



FDR knew the US had to get into the war against Germany; he didn't want the US distracted by Japan. Pearl Harbor was the last thing he wanted.



Again, you're proving my point; economic sanctions will not always work.



I would love to see this evidence for an American invasion of Japan that has been missed by historians over the last fifty years.



The Japanese did have an imperial agenda on the US, specifically the Philippines and possibly Hawaii (though it most likely would have been returned to the US in a peace deal in the very unlikely event it was taken).

What Japan feared was the US objecting to its conquest of the Far East and staging attacks on convoys using bombers and subs based in the Philippines. They didn't fear a pre-emptive attack by the US; they feared the US coming the support of its allies in the Far East after Japan attacked those allies.

The US invaded Japan in 1853...Japan then came to realize they didn't have to be everyone's doormat so they wanted their place in the sun too.

Sanctions are not the ONLY way to avoid war.

What's being missed here is that if we work together we can avoid allowing imperial regimes to get up and operational. One main problem is too many Americans ignore/deny the US is imperial...just like many Germans in 1940.

 

[Agrippa]

The US invaded Japan in 1853...Japan then came to realize they didn't have to be everyone's doormat so they wanted their place in the sun too.

So in 1941, then, Japan was not expecting an invasion. Their war was thus one of aggression..

Sanctions are not the ONLY way to avoid war.

Alright then. You are the head of state of any country of your choice in 1939. How do you stop Hitler?

What's being missed here is that if we work together we can avoid allowing imperial regimes to get up and operational. One main problem is too many Americans ignore/deny the US is imperial...just like many Germans in 1940.

United action can prevent the need for war, but what about when people don't want to act together? You, as a national leader with the best of intentions can still find yourself going to war.

 

[k]

So in 1941, then, Japan was not expecting an invasion. Their war was thus one of aggression..

No, I already splained why they hit PH. Yes, they were expecting a US invasion because they were treading on our international trade plans w/ the Far East.

Alright then. You are the head of state of any country of your choice in 1939. How do you stop Hitler?

Get all major players together and discuss things like the Nuremburg Laws and how corporations are helping Hitler.

United action can prevent the need for war, but what about when people don't want to act together? You, as a national leader with the best of intentions can still find yourself going to war.

War is ALWAYS a choice.

True, not everyone wants to work together. This is why I think those who vote for any war should be on the front lines, alongside their sons and daughters followed by those who supported the decision to go to war.

 

[Agrippa]

No, I already splained why they hit PH. Yes, they were expecting a US invasion because they were treading on our international trade plans w/ the Far East.

Again, I'd like to see something about this Japanese fear of an American invasion. I've never seen a mention of this anywhere else. Yes, there would be a commerce war but the American military had no plans of invading Japan, simply battling its navy.

Get all major players together and discuss things like the Nuremburg Laws and how corporations are helping Hitler.

And what happens when no one else is interested in going to war for those principles? The US withdrew their ambassador from Germany after Kristallnacht but wanted nothing else. France was terrified of war with Germany. Britain wanted peace. Stalin wasn't going to move on his own. When you're the only voice calling for a coalition to stop a madman, you can't do much.

Let's remember that in 1934 when Hitler prepared to invade Austria, he was stopped by Italy mobilizing and putting its troops on the Austrian border. That didn't stop him from his ambitions of conquest; he returned to Austria four years later. In September 1938, he was ready to risk war with Britain, France, Czechoslovakia, and possibly the Soviet Union. There was going to have to be some form of violence to stop Hitler.

War is ALWAYS a choice.

True, not everyone wants to work together. This is why I think those who vote for any war should be on the front lines, alongside their sons and daughters followed by those who supported the decision to go to war.

When people spend years slumbering in the face of reality, then you end up in the position of Poland in 1939, with no options but war. Again, as I mentioned in discussions with ScottishJohn earlier, it's rare but it does happen.

 

[Agrippa]

The whole point is that WWI was a stupid war fought for no good reasons. Again and again opportunities were lost. Austria for example. Instead of treating the assasination as the act of terrorism it was, decided to issue a series of impossible ultimatums to the Serbian government, they actually agreed to two of them, but not the third, which they wanted to send to arbitration. There were plenty of other options, but Austria declared war anyway, and this was the action which catapulted all the alliances into activity, and ultimately brought us the war.

In the aftermath of all of this, rather than recognising the futility of the war, the allies chose to punish Germany. Wilson was against this, and favoured a more equitable solution. He didn't get it. The underlying problems of nationalism, complicated alliances, military rivalry, colonial and economic rivalries were all still there. Europe was shattered, but none of these problems had been addressed or dealt with, and in many cases had been added to. In adition there were many other problems. I'm not saying that any of the players you mention in WWII were there, or could have changed course in 1919, or even before the war, but the fact remains that the war solved nothing, and poor decisions were taken both before and after the war. Trying to stop Hitler in 1939 was a problem. Stopping the situation in 1919 or even pre WWI which gifted him his rise to power would have been exceedingly simple.

I agree wholeheartedly. There's a reason why explaining the causes of WWI is so difficult for students; it's because the actors themselves didn't even know why they were fighting.

I think there is a problem comparing the tribal society and its lack of stability to modern warfare. That said, none of the fighting you mentioned provided a solution to any of the problems, they merely postponed the next chapter. Negotiation, which in those circumstances was pretty much impossible, is now the best tool we have. War has always been a blunt instrument, and a poor way of settling differences. However it used to be the only practical way. It no longer is.

Again, I agree. It is a case of last resort that is utilized far too often.

That may well be the best you can provide in the middle ages, and previously. However we can do a great deal better than that now: we can settle age old disputes, and avoid making new ones. We can do both of these with ease. We do not.

We will never irradicate it, but we have lessened those instincts over the last 1000 years, and we can lessen their impact on the world still further.

I would say we are definitely moving in the right direction in both these cases, relying more heavily on diplomacy and reducing those negative aspects, but I'm too much of a pessimist to see them disappearing completely.

I don't see why this is the tack you want to take. The people in 1919 could have had a huge impact on the face of Europe and the world by making better decisions. You may say that this is hindsight, but seriously, where did they think the Versaille treaty was going to lead? Did they think all the pre war problems were just going to 'go away'? This kind of approach we see now. We have spent the last 50 years stirring the middle east with a big stick. The recent escapade is going to cause us trouble for at least another 50 years. That was an obvious outcome. Afghanistan. The same mistakes made by the British twice in the 19th century, once by the Soviets in the 20th century, were repeated by the US and UK - namely we marched in, scattered the opposition, made the mistake of thinking we had won, took our eye off the ball, and now we are sending in more troops to try and fix all the problems we have made SINCE the invasion, never mind the ones which predate it. We need to think before we act, and be a bit less keen to get out our guns.

I supported the war in Afghanistan, because it needed to happen. War is a poor problem solver, but sometimes it is the only option left. In this case we failed to solve the problems even with war, and created several more.

The actors at the end of WWI established a poor peace. As Marshal Foch said (and I paraphrase), "this isn't a peace, this is a truce for 20 years." The leaders of France, Britain, Italy, to a degree Wilson, and the German General Staff in 1918-1919 are to blame for WWII. But the point I want to make is that the people living in 1939 were forced to work within that framework of 1919. They had no impact on it and were thrust into a situation that made war almost a certainty.

War may be necessary at times, but I repeat, it doesn't solve problems, it only has the power to postpone them. Problem solving has to be done alongside and in the aftermath of any acts of violence which are deemed to be necessary.

Recent examples of this would include the end of the cold war, and IRA decomissioning.

I guess our disagreement largely settles down to one of definitions; specifically our definitions of problem. For example, I would say that the Byzantines managed to solve the problem of Arab nomads through a successful military organization while you would bring up the equally valid point that it didn't save them from the Turks. Shall we just agree then that we're both right within the specific contexts of our argument?

 

[ScottishJohn]

I agree wholeheartedly. There's a reason why explaining the causes of WWI is so difficult for students; it's because the actors themselves didn't even know why they were fighting.

This is true. My favourite theory of the key causes of WWI is one of AJP Taylors: Railway timetables.

I'll leave the great man himself to explain:

http://www.ae.metu.edu.tr/~evren/history/texts/taylor1.htm

Again, I agree. It is a case of last resort that is utilized far too often.

This is certainly the case. The more times it is utilised as a 'last resort' before all the other resorts have been exhausted the more we walk ourselves into cul de sacs like the 1939 Hitler scenario, or the current Iraq mess.

I would say we are definitely moving in the right direction in both these cases, relying more heavily on diplomacy and reducing those negative aspects, but I'm too much of a pessimist to see them disappearing completely.

Well, broadly speaking I woudl agree, although the events of the last few years have me deeply concerned. The war in Iraq is a case in point. Many of the difficulties in Iraq are the result of the British mandate in the aftermath of WWI. Many of the other difficulties are the result of dubious US and UK foreign policy since the 50s. The fact remains that given these difficulties the war was entirely unecessary, and has made matters in the region considerably more difficult. In short we have done another Versaille, we have laid down future problems for ourselves in the same way that the heads of state mixed the recipe for WWII in the hall of mirrors. Our escalation of the iranian nuclear problem, the needless sabre rattling displays a similar disregard for peace and human life, as does the whole idea of an arbitrary axis of evil against which any action is justified. Our failure to grab the opportunity that Hamas' election offered is a similar situation. We seem to be unlearning a lot of lessons.

The actors at the end of WWI established a poor peace. As Marshal Foch said (and I paraphrase), "this isn't a peace, this is a truce for 20 years." The leaders of France, Britain, Italy, to a degree Wilson, and the German General Staff in 1918-1919 are to blame for WWII. But the point I want to make is that the people living in 1939 were forced to work within that framework of 1919. They had no impact on it and were thrust into a situation that made war almost a certainty.

There were several points along the way where resisting Germany was not really attempted; their violation of the the versailles treaty in '35 when they introduced conscription, their reoccupation of the Rhineland in '36 - they were particularly vulnerable at this point militarily still not ready for a war - but they got away with it, it passed almost without comment. Appeasement is not negotiation. Who knows what the reaction of the German people would have been had Hitler been exposed at these earlier stages, or greater political pressure had been applied.

I guess our disagreement largely settles down to one of definitions; specifically our definitions of problem. For example, I would say that the Byzantines managed to solve the problem of Arab nomads through a successful military organization while you would bring up the equally valid point that it didn't save them from the Turks. Shall we just agree then that we're both right within the specific contexts of our argument?

I suppose that is a reasonable proposal. Perhaps I could clarify my position; war is at times necessary, however war (as in the act of violence) in itself no longer has the power to solve problems, (in the past when negotiation was impossible it had was not much more effective, but more often necessary, temporary solutions were the only kind of solutions) and must be applied alongwith the use of diplomatic measures to achieve anything. A simple invasion in the current world would be impossible to sustain without the accompanying diplomatic channels being persued. War is one rather blunt tool, in our tool box, (possibly blunt from injudicious use), and must be used in conjunction with negotiation to achieve anything. Negotiation on the other hand is a tool which can solve problems without recourse to war.