It isn't only the 'one man' that starts the war. The 'one man' simply acts as a rally point for everybody who's dissatisfied or those who simply want a war to happen for other reasons. He's nothing more than the banner that gets rallied behind.
All wars are started by that ONE GUY
- Thread starter SUPA FRANKY
- Start date
Recommended Videos
499 BC - 448 BC Persian Wars
476 BC - 449 BC Wars of the Delian League
480 BC First Sicilian War
395 BC - 387 BC Corinthian War
358 BC - 338 BC Wars of the Rise of Macedon
264 BC - 146 BC Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage
215 BC - 168 BC Macedonian Wars
68 Year of the four emperors, Roman civil war
680 - 1355 Byzantine-Bulgarian Wars
715 - 718 Frankish Civil War
Want more modern?
Cold War
Greek Civil War
Korean War
Six-Day War
Soviet war in Afghanistan
Russo-Japanese War
Second Balkan War
World War I
United States occupation of Haiti
Russian Civil War
I think you get the idea. Wars are started by entire countries.
476 BC - 449 BC Wars of the Delian League
480 BC First Sicilian War
395 BC - 387 BC Corinthian War
358 BC - 338 BC Wars of the Rise of Macedon
264 BC - 146 BC Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage
215 BC - 168 BC Macedonian Wars
68 Year of the four emperors, Roman civil war
680 - 1355 Byzantine-Bulgarian Wars
715 - 718 Frankish Civil War
Want more modern?
Cold War
Greek Civil War
Korean War
Six-Day War
Soviet war in Afghanistan
Russo-Japanese War
Second Balkan War
World War I
United States occupation of Haiti
Russian Civil War
I think you get the idea. Wars are started by entire countries.
The American Civil War? I don't think there was some mastermind behind that pulling all the strings. A lot of wars can be linked to one person, but even then this one person is usually just a representation of an entire faction.SUPA FRANKY said:
This is an interesting thread, mostly because the original poster has already had his theory turned inside out before I had a chance too.
But I'm going to post anyway. WWII - aka Hitler Tries to Take Everything Initiative.
Hitler only ended up being the archdemon blamed for this nasty little fight because of the Holocaust. Not that it wasn't atrocious, but the war was an outcropping of what the French and English did at the end of the first world war - thoroughly embarrassed them and plunge them into an economic debt like hasn't been seen since until China and modern day American.
This led to disgruntlement and extremism throughout the German populace that led to the biggest oopsie election in history, when Hitler took power in a contested vote because the powers that be thought he would calm down and take less extreme approaches once he knew what it was like to actually be in office. Several million lives later, we are much wiser.
The Japanese are almost as much to blame, however, and did their fair part in attempting to exterminate all social and political opposition in the part of China and the Philippines they conquered. They just didn't get the same publicity because they didn't target specific social demographics and ended up on the receiving end of the A-Bomb.
WWI is the king of all intrigue, and frankly I could take hours explaining that one. Arch-Duke Ferdinand was a culmination, alliances screwed over everything. I'll say that and leave in peace on that one.
Modern war on terror? Urgh, this is a sticky one. Frankly, the guys who caused it aren't Hussain and Bin Laden. It was the United States and the USSR. This post has gone on for a while, but this will mostly likely be the longest part, so bear with me. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan for oil, the US wrote it off as lost almost immediately. Six months later, determined Taliban (cough) forces were still picking off Soviet soldiers with well placed ambushed and home made explosives (COUGH). We sold them guns, weapons, and gave them training. We sent them intelligence and suggestions, and they annihilated the Soviets, a setback that was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union. In celebration, the Afghan's democratically elected a staunch nationalist who told the US that their debts would be paid to the cent, but no favors and kindly f*ck off. So, the US did the kind, fair, democratic thing and overthrew him and replaced him with a dictator, the Shah. This is fairly standard practice actually, we did it in South American a half dozen times during the Cold War. The Shah proceeded to sell us discount oil and throw billion dollar parties that lasted for days while the people starved outside his huge palace. Having been kindly equipped by the US with the latest in military hardware, they blew up the Shah and replaced him with pro-national Taliban, who were taken over from the inside by a group of religious extremists who made the group into the internationally recognized terrorist group it is today. All on the US's dollar.
And incidentally? The US praised Osama Bin Laden as a war hero for his brave actions against the USSR.
But I'm going to post anyway. WWII - aka Hitler Tries to Take Everything Initiative.
Hitler only ended up being the archdemon blamed for this nasty little fight because of the Holocaust. Not that it wasn't atrocious, but the war was an outcropping of what the French and English did at the end of the first world war - thoroughly embarrassed them and plunge them into an economic debt like hasn't been seen since until China and modern day American.
This led to disgruntlement and extremism throughout the German populace that led to the biggest oopsie election in history, when Hitler took power in a contested vote because the powers that be thought he would calm down and take less extreme approaches once he knew what it was like to actually be in office. Several million lives later, we are much wiser.
The Japanese are almost as much to blame, however, and did their fair part in attempting to exterminate all social and political opposition in the part of China and the Philippines they conquered. They just didn't get the same publicity because they didn't target specific social demographics and ended up on the receiving end of the A-Bomb.
WWI is the king of all intrigue, and frankly I could take hours explaining that one. Arch-Duke Ferdinand was a culmination, alliances screwed over everything. I'll say that and leave in peace on that one.
Modern war on terror? Urgh, this is a sticky one. Frankly, the guys who caused it aren't Hussain and Bin Laden. It was the United States and the USSR. This post has gone on for a while, but this will mostly likely be the longest part, so bear with me. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan for oil, the US wrote it off as lost almost immediately. Six months later, determined Taliban (cough) forces were still picking off Soviet soldiers with well placed ambushed and home made explosives (COUGH). We sold them guns, weapons, and gave them training. We sent them intelligence and suggestions, and they annihilated the Soviets, a setback that was the beginning of the end of the Soviet Union. In celebration, the Afghan's democratically elected a staunch nationalist who told the US that their debts would be paid to the cent, but no favors and kindly f*ck off. So, the US did the kind, fair, democratic thing and overthrew him and replaced him with a dictator, the Shah. This is fairly standard practice actually, we did it in South American a half dozen times during the Cold War. The Shah proceeded to sell us discount oil and throw billion dollar parties that lasted for days while the people starved outside his huge palace. Having been kindly equipped by the US with the latest in military hardware, they blew up the Shah and replaced him with pro-national Taliban, who were taken over from the inside by a group of religious extremists who made the group into the internationally recognized terrorist group it is today. All on the US's dollar.
And incidentally? The US praised Osama Bin Laden as a war hero for his brave actions against the USSR.
Locke was not a contemporary of the American Revolutionaries. I don't have the exact dates, but I know that he wrote his "Second Treatise on Government" well before the founding fathers. They were however very familiar with his ideology and it certainly did influence their thoughts and decisions. I have a feeling the Founding Fathers would have declared independence with or without the "support" of John Locke.Sev72 said:
It's more often about a woman than just one person. Women can end the world I tells ya.PayJ567 said:
Huh, never heard that idea before. Do you know where I can find out more about the forgery? Because all I can find with Google is pro-Germans and anti-war Americans suggesting it was a forgery...Sirch.Cajnos said:
Anyway, OP's theory seems to have been well and truly discredited, so I'm not going to shovel on any more hurt.
Well actually those one guys' that you mention were part of a bigger organization IE: Hitler=Nazi Party, Osama=Taliban and the last guy umm... I don't know who the hell he is. But what I'm getting at is that it's usually that ONE GROUP that starts the shit-storm that is war.
The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was never the "cause" of WWI, but the spark (the casus belli) that set it all alight. World War I had been in the making long before the July Crisis of 1914 and all it needed was an event to start it all. The Algiers Crisis, for example, came very close to starting the war. So if the assassination did not occur, then another event would have started it. By that point, the "War to End All Wars" was simply a matter of when, not if.Aur0ra145 said:
As for who was "guilty" for the war, all involved parties could be blamed to some degree. But naturally, the victors placed it all on the defeated Germany....and doomed the world to yet another war.
It's not that the one guy starts the war. War is pretty much inevitable by this point, but what that one guy does is stand up, take charge, and say "alright, then lets go to freaking war." Usually everyone's all for it, but no one wants to stand up and do anything about it, thats why one guy can seem to be so evil. All it takes is one guy to spur on a few more people, and they in turn spur on a few more, and pretty soon, you have a war on your hands.