Are the Sykes-Picot borders that bad?

[DoomBunny]

You must be reading the Treaty of Versailles.

Not at all. Would you like me to suggest some of the great deal of literature about the First World War which has discussed this point in detail?

He is an aberration. And made severe miscalculations about being retaliated upon. A rare bug.

Hardly so, as I've noted. Moreover, Hitler actively sought a war, this much is pretty clear.

*shrug* Alex & Nappy inherited wars.

Somewhat hard to accidentally inherit conquering half a continent, no?

You're also deliberately omitting all the others I've mentioned.

Now my turn. What about Eberhard of Salzburg? Or Leonard of Salzburg? Or Joachim of Salzburg? Or Friedrich of Salzburg? Or Sigismund of Salzburg? and so on. And after you're done with the list for Salzburg, we can move on to Linz, etc.

Indeed, many rulers have not gone to war. This does not invalidate my point in any way.

Do you really want to play this stupid game?

Not really, you can admit you're wrong any time you like.

Again with the military porn.

Again, hardly so.

Though let us take your point at face value for a second; does the existence of military porn not evidence my point about humanities warlike nature?

I eat every day and copulate with frequency, yes. So it should be noted.

And yet, you're not doing it every second of every day, are you? Hence proving my point.

I spend the remainder of my time laboring for bread. So, yeah, I got it all accounted for.

Fair enough, clearly all you want to do is sleep, eat, shag, and earn. That's your choice.

Now what makes the choices of someone seeking war any less valid? Certainly, I'd agree that war is less desirable, but that doesn't mean it isn't a choice some people make, for whatever reason.

I do as most human beings have done, since the beginning of time.

So you're a fish?

No, I don't want war. I don't start fights which risk getting me fired or having my fields burned down. Do you?

Not at all. Again, however, this doesn't mean that many don't.

But it's not common. To cite "only consider history" proves you have really no case for it. Move away from military history, and try reading some real history.

Peace is the norm. Overwhelmingly so. And peace is the norm for a very simple reason: we don't want to be retaliated upon. So peace conventions have developed - from the day the first property line was invented, to say this is mine, that is yours, let's avoid conflict over resources. Even animals understand that and develop peace norms on territory to avoid fighting.

Salzburg doesn't launch wars against Linz because they know the Linzers will retaliate and burn down the fields of Salzburgers. Whatever you were imagining to gain by attacking Linz, you're going to end up hurting yourself. And its not worth it.

Peace is the norm throughout history. The only way a war can break out is if you're arrogantly stupid enough to imagine you can start fights with no consequences (vid. Hitler). Or you are invulnerable to retaliation (vid. European imperialists).

Practically every war can be explained by either of those two exceptions. War is rare because nobody is usually that stupid or that invulnerable. But occasionally, yes, idiots arise with blind hubris. And occasionally, yes, you're lucky to be in an invulnerable situation. But that is not normal.

Most of the world is in the situation of Salzburg & Linz - your neighbors have arms and can reach your lands with ease, so no, you don't start fights. You seek agreements over every possible cause - lands, waterways, tolls, etc. - and maintain peace. It is why we even have countries, if you've noticed, defining boundaries between sovereigns, to prevent conflict over what is mine and what is yours, in order to preserve peace.

When you got a situation that most of the world has, where neighbors are armed and can reach you with ease, you don't pursue war. That is the norm. It's pretty hard for a war to break out.

I've been over this. No, war is not omnipresent. This is an absurd suggestion, and indeed a strawman.

This does not mean that it is not common however. There are innumberable wars and conflicts throughout history, going back as far as we have even semi-reliable sources.

Conflict is a part of human history, to deny this is simply to deny facts.

*shrug* It wouldn't be the first time ancients have been wiser than moderns.

Again, not in itself an argument.

In all those cases, it is about retaliation. Your very examples are situations of invulnerability. You couldn't retaliate on Vikings, or Barbary Corsairs, etc. So they were in an unusual situation of being able to hit & run without your being able to hit back on their homelands.

Thankyou for proving my point; again we see that this is not a unique occurrence.

Once you were able to hit back - once you could sail to Algiers, or became neighbors with Vikings - suddenly they stopped.

Well, I guess the colonizers must have been better natured than everyone else then?

If Salzburgers can't find Linz on a map, Linzers might take a gamble.

And yet, plenty of wars have started between powers who were more equal in power, capable of striking each other, etc...

Yes, technological superiority sometimes causes a temporary invulnerability. Anything that allow you to hit & run with ease - whether it is steppe ponies & recurved bows for the Mongols or artillery and ship technology for Europeans. It only took a handful of ships to bring the entire perimeter of the Indian Ocean to submission.

Technological or organisational. In many cases the colonizer was victorious not because of some technological major technological advantage, but rather through organisational ones.

Well, you are apparently not at all familiar with Jewish ghetto police.

Many of them left today?

And your kink for military porn is beginning to get the better of your senses.

Ad hominem.

I don't know what to say to that, other than facepalm.

The point is invalid, how?

To be frank, I think I've indulged you far more than you deserved. Your thesis was dumb on its face to begin with, and I shouldn't have even bothered to reply. And your follow-ups haven't been any better. Evidently, you haven't given this much thought or research. I've been far kinder than most would have been.

Again with the ad hominem. Indeed, I actually have researched this quite a lot.

 

[Geriander]

Peace is the norm throughout history. The only way a war can break out is if you're arrogantly stupid enough to imagine you can start fights with no consequences (vid. Hitler). Or you are invulnerable to retaliation (vid. European imperialists).
.

Coming from a country that has fought 36 wars with its southern neigbhour I must object to the labeling of our kings as arrogently stupid. Since they generally bore a lesser burden of retaliation and got a greater share of the spoils, wars made sense. The same has been true all over the world as the leaders tend to be the first to benefit and the last to suffer from war.

 

[Fornadan]

Not at all. Would you like me to suggest some of the great deal of literature about the First World War which has discussed this point in detail?

There is plenty enough of non-Fischerite literature out there as well.

 

[DoomBunny]

There is plenty enough of non-Fischerite literature out there as well.

Indeed there is. It is however less persuasive than the German/Austrian school of thought, which shows with a great deal of evidence that both Berlin and Vienna sought to pursue their long-term grand strategic goals through forcing a conflict with Serbia, without regard to the wider consequences (and in the case of some elements, actively hoping for them).

 

[Fanstar1]

Indeed there is. It is however less persuasive than the German/Austrian school of thought, which shows with a great deal of evidence that both Berlin and Vienna sought to pursue their long-term grand strategic goals through forcing a conflict with Serbia, without regard to the wider consequences (and in the case of some elements, actively hoping for them).

And some believe it is primarily Vienna's fault, as I believe.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Indeed there is. It is however less persuasive than the German/Austrian school of thought, which shows with a great deal of evidence that both Berlin and Vienna sought to pursue their long-term grand strategic goals through forcing a conflict with Serbia, without regard to the wider consequences (and in the case of some elements, actively hoping for them).

Moltke the Younger's dream of surpassing Moltke the Elder's victory over France 40 years previously?

Hubris and the battlefield, together again.

 

[DoomBunny]

And some believe it is primarily Vienna's fault, as I believe.

I'd go with both to be honest. The Austrians for their part decided to go for a war with Serbia, but the Germans were also responsible for driving them on and encouraging them to make a big deal out of what was a pretty minor event slipping further and further into the past.

Moltke the Younger's dream of surpassing Moltke the Elder's victory over France 40 years previously?

Hubris and the battlefield, together again.

That and the classic German mistake of thinking in military terms without considering any of the wider consequences.

 

[demanvanwezel]

I think there was also german military thinking that war was inevitable and with france strengthening it's army and russia building railroads in the west the longer it waited the worse that war would be for them (I think according to their calculations victory was impossible from 1915 onwards)

 

[Henry IX]

The idea that wars are an abberation is simply not born out by the examination of history - particularly history prior to the 16th century. One of the notable features of feudal societies (with the notable exception of England) is the condition of chronic low level conflict that pervaded the society. The annals and records of the time are literally full of armed conflics and attempts to restrain them.

To extend the point further, look at Irish history prior to Longbow's invasion - virtually every petty kingdom went to war with its neighboures at some point in any generation. Whilst most kingdoms were at peace most of the time, war was certainly not considered unusual or exceptional.

 

[JodelDiplom]

To extend the point further, look at Irish history prior to Longbow's invasion - virtually every petty kingdom went to war with its neighboures at some point in any generation. Whilst most kingdoms were at peace most of the time, war was certainly not considered unusual or exceptional.

Once per generation is not very frequent though.

The point Abdul was making wasnt that warfare was so unusual people didn't know anything about it. Far from it. Historic knowledge of people of course was very much about battles and wars and heroic deeds in battles and in wars. But battles and wars weren't that frequent occurrences. Most people would be born, live, and die without ever having witnessed a battle or having been directly affected by warfare.

 

[Easy-Kill]

So, let me read this again: You say you visited North Korea. This means you stayed in a tourist approved hotel, shopped in the tourist approved shops, and visited the tourist approved landmarks; yes? You spoke with North Korean nationals carefully vetted to speak with foreigners, and they say how great North Korea is and how proud they are to stand alone against the entire world. Your entire viewpoint is changed, it is now a land of Milk and Honey to you with Freedom for all.

Were you able to get the opinion of the tens of thousands of political prisoners held in work camps? No? Ah, big surprise.

Apologies for the slow response, my personal work took over for a few weeks.

Again, I point you to my comment where I state that you are neither as clever or knowledgeable as you think you are. You are basically saying that because my opinion is different to yours, I am not competent to form an unbiased opinion. I too expected that I would only ever see a carefully choreographed image of the regime, then after about 12 hours, I realised that I really wasn't that important, they didn't actually care what I thought about their country and their main concern was the westerners trying to subvert their way of life (i.e. the way of life the government would like to have). I have no doubt that they showed us the best parts of the country and that interactions were carefully managed. However, strangely enough, I am experienced enough to appreciate that.

And going the prison camp route of arguement ... we could pretty much look at the penal system. Hell searching 'the worst prisons in the world' list (google search) has a lot of US prisons in it. Is that an accurate reflection of the rest of the country.

So again, please get over yourself.

 

[gagenater]

Once per generation is not very frequent though.

The point Abdul was making wasnt that warfare was so unusual people didn't know anything about it. Far from it. Historic knowledge of people of course was very much about battles and wars and heroic deeds in battles and in wars. But battles and wars weren't that frequent occurrences. Most people would be born, live, and die without ever having witnessed a battle or having been directly affected by warfare.

A war every generation involving your society even in a peripheral way is a major league and common occurrence. If you live in a place where a major flood takes place every 20 years, your region is flood prone and that factor is the major decisive point in where houses are constructed and what kinds of social organizations will exist in the area. If you live in a place where you personally see a tornado (not get hit by one just get close enough to see it) every 20 years, you live in tornado alley and construct homes with safe rooms, set up warning systems, etc. . If you live in a place that gets hit by a hurricane every 20 years it shapes everything that is built in the entire community. Truely destructive and disruptive events don’t have to happen every week or every year or even every decade to be THE decisive influence in the organization of a society.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

A war every generation involving your society even in a peripheral way is a major league and common occurrence. If you live in a place where a major flood takes place every 20 years, your region is flood prone and that factor is the major decisive point in where houses are constructed and what kinds of social organizations will exist in the area. If you live in a place where you personally see a tornado (not get hit by one just get close enough to see it) every 20 years, you live in tornado alley and construct homes with safe rooms, set up warning systems, etc. . If you live in a place that gets hit by a hurricane every 20 years it shapes everything that is built in the entire community. Truely destructive and disruptive events don’t have to happen every week or every year or even every decade to be THE decisive influence in the organization of a society.

You speak of flood plains with great knowledge. Almost like you live on the edge of one and just watched 50 inches of rain fall in less than a week.

 

[gagenater]

You speak of flood plains with great knowledge. Almost like you live on the edge of one and just watched 50 inches of rain fall in less than a week.

Whaaaaa????

Yep. Catastrophes stick in the brain. A war every generation is often enough that everyone but a few half grown idiots has personal memories of what happened in the last war. That makes war FAR more consequential for the society than say - tobacco You might have a cigar 2 or 300 times a year but it’s consequences are still smaller than 1 war every 20 years on the society.

 

[JodelDiplom]

A war every generation involving your society even in a peripheral way is a major league and common occurrence. If you live in a place where a major flood takes place every 20 years, your region is flood prone and that factor is the major decisive point in where houses are constructed and what kinds of social organizations will exist in the area. If you live in a place where you personally see a tornado (not get hit by one just get close enough to see it) every 20 years, you live in tornado alley and construct homes with safe rooms, set up warning systems, etc. . If you live in a place that gets hit by a hurricane every 20 years it shapes everything that is built in the entire community. Truely destructive and disruptive events don’t have to happen every week or every year or even every decade to be THE decisive influence in the organization of a society.

Yes exactly. These kind of big disruptive catastrophes shape how people organize society, but they are not common occurrence. They happen in some places some of the time, and people would know more about them from tales and stories than from actually having witnessed one.

This is like what Abdul wrote about war in past times. Wars and their memory shape how people organize their societies that is a fact, but they don't have to be (and generally weren't) common occurrence for that to be the case. It is a false conclusion to state that because war was very present in takes and stories, it had to have happened very often to people.

 

[gagenater]

Yes exactly. These kind of big disruptive catastrophes shape how people organize society, but they are not common occurrence. They happen in some places some of the time, and people would know more about them from tales and stories than from actually having witnessed one.

This is like what Abdul wrote about war in past times. Wars and their memory shape how people organize their societies that is a fact, but they don't have to be (and generally weren't) common occurrence for that to be the case. It is a false conclusion to state that because war was very present in takes and stories, it had to have happened very often to people.

no - that's the exact opposite of what I said. In a society where war involving them takes place every generation, the average person knows about war from first hand experience. If the war(s) only take place somewhere nearby every generation or so and the people only hear about it, from travelers, refuges, etc. then your conclusion is correct. I believe my opinion tends to be more accurate for most people in most locations before the era of modern states. Armed conflict was common - the 'once a generation' repetition being correct. Often at a 'low level' consisting of raids, small night attacks, etc. but the threat of it was present a too often to be considered unusual. Note that a generation is generally considered to be 20 years.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Everyone knows a war story, very few have actually fought in a war?

Fair enough.

Might leaven that with the concept of Generational Memory: after three generations Mankind forgets the memories of their predecessors. Yes, the stories and the knowledge accumulates over time; but the personal memories are lost, and one actually has to go looking for them to find them.

 

[gagenater]

Everyone knows a war story, very few have actually fought in a war?

Fair enough.

Might leaven that with the concept of Generational Memory: after three generations Mankind forgets the memories of their predecessors. Yes, the stories and the knowledge accumulates over time; but the personal memories are lost, and one actually has to go looking for them to find them.

I can buy that. By 'affected' I was thinking more along the lines of suffering some of the real consequences of a war without being an active participant yourself. Ex; 'know someone killed, had a neighbor burned out, know a cousin who served in the war, had to pay double taxes for 2 years, got 1/2 the crop confiscated that one time, etc. Obviously the number who actually serve will be far fewer. Pre modern societies skewed much more towards youth than modern ones do. Within one generation (20 years) of the end of the last conflict, nobody under the age of 25 or so will have any personal experiences of war. Because of the demographics, that group will be something like 1/2 to 1/3rd of the total population - a much larger portion than in modern societies. This has a real and tangible effect on the sorts of actions and policies that the society will decide to undertake as a whole.

 

[DoomBunny]

Once per generation is not very frequent though.

It's pretty common. The United States has been engaged in seven major wars in the last hundred years, and this has been a generally peaceful century.

The point Abdul was making wasnt that warfare was so unusual people didn't know anything about it. Far from it. Historic knowledge of people of course was very much about battles and wars and heroic deeds in battles and in wars. But battles and wars weren't that frequent occurrences. Most people would be born, live, and die without ever having witnessed a battle or having been directly affected by warfare.

The point he was making was attempting to rebut my own, that war is a common occurrence and that civilizations throughout the ages have gone to war with each other, often idealizing their warriors in the process, and that the modern aversion to war as something utterly horrible and to be avoided is just that; a modern thing.

 

[bz249]

The point he was making was attempting to rebut my own, that war is a common occurrence and that civilizations throughout the ages have gone to war with each other, often idealizing their warriors in the process, and that the modern aversion to war as something utterly horrible and to be avoided is just that; a modern thing.

The difference is of course that wars are less and less profitable. In the 16th century a leading nation like England could engage in the noble business of piracy and got the better out of it. Nowadays you need a stateless shithole like Somalia to reasonably expect profit from it.