RE THE MILITARY

Apparently reliable lists currently posted on the Internet indicate that there are at least seventy six million military, reserve, and paramilitary personnel in existence worldwide.  Said lists also express the fact that the United States presently maintains close to a million and a half of these military on active duty; plus approximately the same number of National Guard and Reserve members as well.  A large portion of these U.S. military service members are stationed in about 150 countries worldwide.

This state of affairs, whereby there exist millions of human beings having a primary function of killing one another--and at times hapless civilians as well--is not a novel phenomenon.  Starting as marauding raiding parties in prehistoric times, humans have organized themselves, or permitted themselves to be organized, over the years, into regimented groups, for the purpose of attacking other human beings, and/or defending their people and places against attack by others having similar organization and purpose.

Throughout history, the military has frequently played a major role in determining the course of events that have shaped mankind's destiny.  Ancient armies were used to create and preserve empires, whose names today are household terms.  They have comprised the compulsion behind the aggregations of people and places that came under the rule or domination of foreigners during times of imperialism.  To this day, military force, or the threat thereof, is used as the primary means of imposing physical rule and/or political control upon people or nations who are sought to be dominated.

Armed forces--and, particularly, individuals having control over, or the backing of, the military--have constituted the vehicles throughout history whereby governments have been formed, maintained, overthrown, and replaced.  During the military frenzy that comprised a major component of Naziism in Germany, the women of the country were commanded to bear lots of children, so as to provide many "soldiers of the future" for the "Fuhrer" and his agenda.

                                                    * * * * *

PLEASE leave a comment--here--or via E-Mail, to oneworld@tampabay.rr.com.



 

THE HARMS WROUGHT BY NATIONAL CONFLICTS AND WARFARE

People who oppose wars are called "doves"; and their beliefs and policies are referred to as "dovishness."  Their opposites--i.e., those who favor conflict and warfare--are known as "hawks"; and their position is frequently called "militarism."

There is also a distinction between two types of opposition to war.  "Anti-war" is the term used to describe beliefs or movements directed toward the commencement or continuation of a specific armed conflict.  The protesters may or may not be averse to all war; they are, rather, opposed to a particular war because they believe it to be unjust, or contrary to the best interests of their country or themselves.  "Pacifists," on the other hand, oppose the practice of war in general.  Their convictions dictate that nations should not maintain a condition of readiness to fight one another.  Instead, they believe that relations among men ought be carried on via discussions, mediation, and compromise.

Pacifism can be active in nature (i.e., working toward the establishment of peace in the world); or passive (refusing to participate in armed conflict).  When war does break out, these latter usually base their refusal to bear arms upon moral grounds.  As a class, they are known as "conscientious objectors."  They are frequently given ancillary duties of a non-military nature during the duration of the conflict, in order to fulfill their obligations in manners that do not violate their beliefs. 

Absolute pacifists hold that any and all forms of war, killing, and violence are unconditionally wrong.  Their attitudes may be summed up in the words "turn the other cheek"--a posture which is also sometimes referred to as "religious pacifism."  Such believers are also called "moral consequentialists," in view of their doctrine that the evils of war always outweigh the benefit that it may produce, or the wrongs that it may extinguish. 

Conditional pacifists, on the other hand, are opposed to some wars; but can approve the bearing of arms under certain circumstances (e.g., war for the sake of dereating an "evil" force; intervention to protect an abused people; or military action aimed at preserving peace in the long run). 

It has been said that peace is the most favorable condition within which man can reside; and that peace enables enterprise to bear fruit, families to exist in tranquility, and life in general to progress and to flourish.  For this reason, some philosophers, including Plato and Aristotle, have specified that wars waged for the purpose of achieving or maintaining peace are permissible, and even necessary.  Or, to state it another way, man's theoretical duty to refrain from participation in warfare can conflict with, and be "trumped by," our duty to defend lives against aggressors.  Moreover, to follow the logic of Edmund Burke, choosing not to wage war under circumstances such as this will not only fail to stop aggression, but will actually encourage it--for "evil will always flourish when good men do nothing."

Some maintain a position known as "defencism," holding defensive warfare and acts of deterrence to be acceptable, but condemning any and all aggressive wars.  This position, which is held by many conditional pacifists, is also referred to as reliance upon what is termed a "just war doctrine."  In fact, under such circumstances, refusal to participate in a "just war" may be judged morally wrong. 

As set forth above, during World War II, the aforementioned Bertrand Russell adopted such a position, submitting that the need to defeat Hitler constituted a unique circumstance and thus outweighed the basic wrongs implicit in waging war.  He called his position "relative pacifism."

                                                   * * * * *

It is my personal opinion that violence should be avoided; but is acceptable on the part of domestic authorities (i.e., the police), when it must be resorted to in order to legitimately and reasonably sustain law and order, preserve the peace, or apprehend or restrain dangerous individuals.  This is based, at least in part, upon John Locke's precept that aggressors lose their rights when they attack others.

It is furthermore the belief of some contemporary pacifists, and of me as well, that a single world government is the only way to prevent and control aggression among nations.  This is actually the basic theme of what I have been writing all along.  For if there were no array of separate nations within our world, there would be no nations to carry on such attacks; and no natioins as well to be on the receiving end of such attacks.  Violence by individuals, or groups of people, directed against other individuals or groups of people, would be termed, viewed as, and dealt with, as mere "crime."

There would no longer be a duty imposed upon whole national populations to take up and bear arms against other national populations in the nane of "national interest" or "sovereignty."  For the most fundamental and important sovereignty of all--the sovereignty, freedom, and right to fulfillment of each individual human being--would be the only principle requiring protection, in a world freed of the entanglements and difficulties implicit in our present multitudinous array of nation-states.

                                                  * * * * *

THE HARMS WROUGHT BY NATIONAL CONFLICTS AND WARFARE

As we know, there have been opponents of violence and warfare throughout history.  Protests objecting to the waging of war were raised as far back as the Peloponnesian War of 431 to 404 BC.  These included a "sex strike" by a number of Athenian women, as depicted by Aristophanes in his comedy, Lysistrata.  A number of religious sects, including the Quakers (Friends), Amish, and Mennonites, have openly preached pacifism to its adherents.

Love of, and desire for, peace among men have often been transmitted from one great mind to another.  For example, Leo Tolstoy is said to have been influenced by the writings of Henry David Thoreau regsarding civil disobedience on behalf of the promotion of peace.  Further, we are told that Tolstoy's writings in turn influenced Ghandi's conversion to pacifism.

                                                   * * * * *

The concept of strict control constituting a basis for peace can be hearkened back many centuries to ancient Egypt.  There, between 5000 and 2000 BC, one of the longest recorded periods of peace among humans occurred.  It has been attributed to the strict and unchanging social system that existed during these years in that part of the world.

Imperialism has sometimes imposed peace upon an array of otherwise belligerent groups, who might likely have continued fighting among themselves, had there not been the dominating presence and control of the imperial power.  Examples can be cited in the pax romana of ancient times, and the pax Britannica of England's imperialist era.  A later example lies in the results attained by the strict control exercised over the "satellite" states within the Soviet Union--a tranquility that soon became violently unbound in many places following its dissolution. 

Many of the most prominent anti-war movements have arisen in connection with wars conducted, or entered into, by the United States.  The eighteenth century saw anti-war activities on the eve of the Civil War, when George McClellan was nominated and ran as a "Peace Democrat" against the incumbent Abraham Lincoln.

The beginnings of World War I witnessed an avalanche of criticism and protest by many Americans, opposed to what were termed Presient Wilson's pro-British policies.
His "preparedness" and "rearmament" programs prompted anti-war demonstrations, attempts to rally America's labor sector against the war, and agitation for a referendum concerning our entry into the conflict.  As would reappear in regard to later wars, questions were posed about the motivations behind our participation in what were considered altercations taking place across the sea, or on the other side of the world.  Our government's response in 1914 was announcement to the citizenry that "draft resisters" might be imprisoned, and could even be executed.

Socialist groups have long opposed war, on the basis of allegations that it comprised a form of government coercion of the working class--sending them out to fight and kill one another, for the benefit of their economic and political masters.

                                                  * * * * *

The mass slaughter that constituted World War I produced, for a time, much revulsion with war.  But the war drums soon began to sound once more, as the path to World War II began to define itself.  Mussolini, Hitler, and the Soviet Union banned pacifist literature, as well as anti-war speeches and demonstrations.  On the other hand, even reasonable minds like Bertrand Russell expressed the idea that ridding the world of the likes of Adolf Hitler was a unique exception to the principles of pacifism.  And for a time, anti-war sentiments becsame unpopular, and were even deemed foolish, in light of what was happening in parts of Europe during the nineteen thirties and early forties.

Following the Second World War came the "Cold War."  It led to a series of smaller but nonetheless deadly confrontations and conflicts in which the lives of many of our next generation would be sacrificed.  It also caused anti-war concepts to once more become a major factor in popular thought, as well as politics, during the second half of the twentieth century.

During the nineteen sixties, college students demonstrated on behalf of ideals such as peace, disarmament, and a halt to nuclear testing.  This atmosphere grew into a culmination of anti-war feeling which reached its peak during the Vietnam conflict.  Thousands rallied in Washington to protest America's involvement in warfare within a country many Americans had hardly heard of.  Many of the younger generation viewed our participation in that war as a barter of young American lives in return for "war profiteering" on the part of corporate interests and the older generation.  The Vietnam War has thus come to be regarded in America as a "two front war":  one in Vietnam itself--and another on the streets and campuses within our country.

                                                    * * * * *

Now, the world's latest war controversies of this nature have concerned what is primarily American military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The Iraqui nation was attacked and defeated once, by "U.N. forces," in January, 1991, when it attempted to annex, or reattach, Kuwait, which had once constituted its southern tip, but had gained independence a number of years ago.  At least 30,000 Iraquis died during the conflict; and Kuwait was liberated once more.

Iraq was once again attacked by "U.N. forces" in 2003, following much prompting by the second President Bush, emanating from a fear that Iraq might have developed weapons of mass destruction.  One commentator has submitted that logic would thereby dictate Russia, Great Britain, France, Germany, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, North Korea, and the United States be similarly attacked by U.N. forces, because they also happen to possess such weapons.

Notwithstanding, this invasion was termed an "optional war" by many, and recognized by most as having been based upon insufficient evidence of the presence in Iraq of such weapons, nor of Iraq's connection to the September 11th tragedy in New York City.  It was, in fact, feared that this invasion would promote continued acts of terrorism within the United States, and/or elsewhere in the world.

Shortly before its commencement, the largest worldwide protest demonstration of all time took place, involving millions of participants in numerous places.  But, as is wont with most such spectacles, the result was inconsequential, and the planned invasion went on.

Roundly criticized as having been faultily conceived, improperly executed, and lacking a plan for conclusion, it generated an abundance of casualties to our military, as well as vast quantities of death, destruction, and disorder upon the hapless millions who live there.

In an effort to improve matters, a "surge," consisting of at least 28,000 additional troops, was endorsed and implemented by President George W. Bush during the first half of 2007.  It was credited with having reduced violence; but general conditions in the country continue to be a shamnbles to this day.

By the middle of 2008, the fighting continued.  Iraqi and other insurgents continued their stubborn resistance, much of which being suicidal in nature.  A majority of Americans had by now expressed opinions that the "Coalition's" casualty rate (over 4,000) was unacceptable, and that the war was not worth commencing in the first place.

But by 2010, our troop numbers were increased further, and our efforts extended to Afghanistan and Pakistan--where the "root" of the enemy was said to continue to flourish, and to send forth its hatred for and attacks upon Coalition forces and peace in general.  As Afghanistan has proceeded to become our current primary theater of war, the future seems to constitute a continuation of death and destruction, in the name of "nation-building," until final terminatoion of our activities there (as has been promised to America by our present Administration) comes to pass.

                                                      * * * * *

THE HARMS WROUGHT BY NATIONAL CONFLICTS AND WARFARE

It seems a self-evident fact that peace and prosperity vary at similar rates, and in direction proportion to each other.  In accounts concerning periods as far back as ancient Greece, we frequently encounter the proposition that intervals of peace favored and promoted economic growth.  Descriptions of the "arabization" period said that agriculture flourished, and trade revived and expanded, during these placid years.  Similarly, accounts of Europe during the Middle Ages refer to expanded trade and greater prosperity as a result of longer periods without war. 

In the same manner, England has been described as having enjoyed a century of tranquility between 1650 and 1750.  This hundred years has been credited with being "of literally incalculable benefit to the [British] economy." (J. A. S. Grenville, A History of the World of the Twentieth Century)

For the world economy, the years of peace prior to World War I are said to have constituted one of the most prosperous eras in our history.  Europe enjoyed pre-eminence in industry, technology, and science; and the beginnings of real globalization were in the process of taking place.  Currencies were stable; food prices, freight charges, insurance rates, interest rates, and taxes were all low.  Then came 1914, the mobilization of sixty million men, and a colossal European war, the magnitude of which had never before been witnessed.  It produced an abrupt and sweeping halt to all that had been accomplished to date.

 Writing about this era, British author Norman Angell cites the free trade and commercial connections that were taking place in growing proportions among the Western industrial nations--as proof of the insanity of the warfare that followed.
(Norman Angell, The Great Illusion).  Such hostilities, he concludes, are incredibly foolish, because they render ruin upon the winner as well as the loser.

Another such period of increased globalization and prosperity has commenced during the current years of relative peace and international stability, among the major powers, since the end of World War II.  It is, of course, possible that a worldwide conflagration
might at any time curtail once more mankind's presumed progress to date.

                                                     * * * * *

On December 31, 1999, New Years celebrations around the world marked the end of a millennium.  It was capped by our latest century, the twentieth, which has been described as mankind's bloodiest and deadliest.  All told, during this violent century, at least 187 million people perished from war, massacre, persecution, and policy-induced famine.  It stands out as being a century during which more human beings died at the hands of each other, or as a result of each other's efforts, than due to natural disasters.  And this waste and suffering goes on into our new centuryand millennium, as groups of people continue to consider, and bear consequent hostility toward, other groups of people as enemies--instead of all of us working together to defeat the real problems that beset all of us.

                                                    * * * * *

Of course, wars produce propaganda while they are going on, and substantial amounts of ill will after they are over.  The hostility among people as a result of the American Civil War of 1861 to 1865 continues in some parts of the United States to this day.  Grudges on the part of many Frenchmen, resulting from their defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 and '71, survived to contribute to the start of the First World War, more than forty years later.

World War I itself was fraught with much propaganda, whereupon it has been noted that this horrendous conflict "fed upon itself," causing the governments of the involved nations to become "prisoners of their own propaganda."  The same processes took place during World War II, and many of the same kinds of bitterness and grudges followed--among which some continue unto today.

                                                    * * * * *

In a world of nation-states, there are always conflicts, as well as all-out wars going on between, or within, a number of them.  In fact, since 1931, there have hardly been more than a few weeks at a time that legions of human beings were not fighting one another somewhere in the world.  Many of these nation-states are small, non-industrial, or otherwise incapable of producing their own weapons for their warfare.  Consequently third party nation-states often seek to get funds or favor of one or more of the combatants by supplying the necessary equipment for their battles.  Thus, we see many instances of larger, more industrialized, nation-states supplying the tools of war to one or perhaps several of the involved nations. 

For example, during the Yom Kippur war between the Arabs and Israelis in 1973, Russia became the supplier to the Arab nations, while the U.S. assumed the same role in regard to Israel.  Another instance can be found during the period between 1986 and 1990, when the United States, and our then continuing grand competitor, Russia, supplied nearly two-thirds of the implements of warfare that were imported by all Third World countries.  Interestingly, during the long war between Iran and Iraq, which took place between 1980 and 1988, fifty three countries sold arms to the belligerents--and twenty eight of these countries sold arms to both sides.

This ready availability of arms produces an abundance of armies, instantly ready to do combat with each other.  In 1990, for example, there were at least 30 million military personnel worldwide, ready to annihilate whomsoever they should be ordered to.  The presence of so many armies, so well equipped and ready for battle, each guarding the perceived interests of its respective nation-state, causes the outbreak of warfare to become somewhat inevitable.  Thus, the number of wars being carried on at any one time has risen from an average of ten during the 1950s, to thirty four in 1993.

In their World Peace through World Law, authors Grenville Clark and Louis Sohn suggest that each step in man's progression into larger and larger agglomerations--frin faanily, to tribe, to town, to city, to national state--has been accompanied by efforts to assert or defend the new larger grouping's interests via violence or threats of violence.  They cite the two great wars of our twentieth century, and the maintenance of the most elaborate and destructive armed forces that the world has ever possessed as being the means and instrumentalities via which the latest steps in this progression have been grandly effectuated and preserved.  They further warn that if genuine peace is to be had, this formidable array of armed forces must be abolished, along with our "ancient method of international violence."  It is interesting to note that the final step in this aforesaid progression--from national state to a single world government--would for the first time be different--for the new agglomerate entity would have no need to protect its interests via violence or threat thereof--in that there would be no parallel entity toward whom violence or threat thereof would need to be flaunted.

                                                   * * * * *

  







 

THE HARMS WROUGHT BY NATIONAL CONFLICTS AND WARFARE

The Second World War was responsible for another fifty to sixty million deaths.  Fifteen to twenty million of these were military personnel; the rest were civilian men, women, and children.  The largest number of losses, both military and civilian, were suffered by the Russians.  Seven and a half to ten million troops never came home; and at least ten to fourteen million civilians died.  Approximately five and a half million Germans lost their lives, including at least three and a half million military.  In addition, the Nazis were responsible at the same time for the deaths of five to six million Jews.

The aforesaid grand total includes over two million Chinese who met their death; as well as approximately two million Japanese.  In addition, almost six million Poles, and a million and a half Yugoslavs were killed.  The British, French, and Italians suffered approximately a half million deaths apiece.  Moreover, the United States military suffered a death toll of close to three hundred thousand. 

As in World War I, the scale of the fighting was incredibly gigantic.  For example, during a single episode south of Moscow in 1943, a thousand Russian tanks were engaged in battle with approximately the same number of German tanks. 

 World War II also stands out as a new kind of warfare, wherein the deliberate killing of massive numbers of civilian non-combatants regularly took place.  London was described as an ocean of flames, as tons of German bombs fell upon it day after day in 1940, killing many thousands of civilians.  And when the German army's seige of Leningrad, Russia, was finally terminated in January of 1943, it was determined that half of the city's residents had not survived the winter.

Similar to the accounts of World War I, some of the more focused particulars concerning this vast reckoning of deaths express the most harrowing details.  For example, more than three million of Russia's losses consisted of Russian prisoners of war who died from exposure and famine in German lands.  The German siege of the Russian fortress at Sevastopol, in July, 1942, consisted of twenty five days of ferocious battle, which claimed over three hundred thousand casualties.  During early 1943, when the German occupation of Stalingrad ended, ninety thousand German troops had perished from starvation and the cold, in addition to the one hundred thousand who were killed during the last three weeks of fighting prior to their surrender.  In July, 1943, American bombers destroyed seven square miles within the city of Hamburg, killing thirty thousand people.  In 1944, two hundred thousand Poles died in Warsaw, after nine weeks of fighting with the Germans.  And in February, 1945, the Russian army conquered Budapest, after fifty days of battle, and the death of 159,000 persons.  During the same month, Allied bombers dropoped death and destruction upon the city of Dresden for two days, leaving that beautiful landmark destroyed, and 130,000--mostly civilians--dead.

Britain's battles with the Japanese during 1942 qand 1943 prompted a directed "scorched earth" policy in the Bengal region of India, as well as a stockpiling or hoarding of the rice produced there for the feeding of British and Indian troops.  This resulteed in a famine om the region during 1943 and 1944, in which close to four million human beings perished.

In March of 1945, American bombers pummeled Tokyo, killing at least a hundred thousand.  In desperation, Japan resorted to drastic, though ineffective, measures, including closing its schools, and ordering all chhildren over six years of age into war service.  In June, United States forces killed over a hundred thousand Japanese on Okinowa.  And a few months later, in August, 1945, the U.S. dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima totally destroyed over four square miles of that city, and brought eventual death to over two hundred thousand thousand Japanese.

Winston Churchill described postwar Europe as a "rubble heap, a charnel house, a breeding ground of pestilence and hate."  One dramatic expression of such hatred was the postwar expulsion of Germans from the nations of Eastern Europe.  This exodus numbered about fifteen million people, of whom two to three million died as a result of lack of food, shelter, and medical care during their travels.

                                                    * * * * *

The greatest man-made threat to humanity--indeed, to our very survival on earth--was unveiled on August 6, 1945, when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.  The "more fortunate" of those to lose their lives were the many who perished immediately.  A longer, more miserable fate awaited the many others who succumbed to "radiation sickness" by the end of that year.  And, of course, there were the numerous additional poor souls who died of cancer during succeeding months and years.

Shortly after the end of World War II, which termination was attributed to the nuclear attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki, differences between the United States and Russia prompted a nuclear arms buildup on the part of both countries.  Thus commenced an arms race that resulteed in each side possessing a cache having the potential to destroy the world.  Like children collecting more and bigger rocks to throw at each other, both nations built, tested, and stockpiled bigger and better bombs.  Subsequently, other countries eventually achieved the dubious distinction of likewise becoming "nuclear powers."

New phrases. like "civil defense," "fall-out shelters," "megadeaths," and "overkill" entered our vocabularies, as the "Cold War" proceeded apace during the sixties and seventies.  The United States and Russia each possessed sufficient "firepower" to destroy each other many times over.  One study estimated that the totality comprised the equivalent of ten tons (i.e., 20,000 pounds) of TNT for each person in Europe (including all of Russia) and America.  A highlight of this dangerous season was the Cuban missile crisis" of 1962, which brought the world closer to the brink of nuclear devastation than it has ever been.  Today, the U.S. and Russia are basically friends; but there have arisen many new enemies in many countries, who constitute threats to world peace.

                                                       * * * * *

Bearing sorry similarity to the Russian Revolution following World War I, a civil war took place in China between 1945 and 1949, which resulted in several million deaths.  Like Russia in 1917, the Chinese upheaval basically resulted from the misery and consequent vulnerability within the country following World War II.  As with Russia of several decades earlier, it likewise represented an attempt by desperate leaders of a miserable mass of citizens to improve the status of a distressed and impoverished giant among the bevy of nations, following a massive destructive war.  Distressed people are ripe for change.  As in genetics, where unfavorable conditions can trigger mutations, distress among people often fosters revolution.  Unfortunately some of these changes can produce more harm than benefit.

A sad result of the changes in China were the excesses and brutalities of  Mao Zedong's regime, which lasted from 1949 to 1975, and cost perhaps some forty million lives.  Responsibility can be assigned to the purges, the labor camps, the famines, and particularly to the casualties of the unrealistic ambitions implicit in a program that bore resemblances to ancient Egypt, called the "Great Leap Forward."

                                                 * * * * *

Another unfortunate event that flared up a short time after the end of the Second World War was the "Korean conflict."  It represented an effort by the communist-led forces of the North, instigated and supported by Communist China, to invade and conquer the non-communist South.  In sum, it could be described as half of a country attacking its other half, with the backing of several larger countries (China and Russia) motivated by their kinship with the North's economic orientation.  Through the mechanism of the United Nations, attempts were made by a group of non-communist countries, consisting mainly of the United States, to stem the tide and repel the invading forces.  As might occur in a schoolyard fight, the North's big brother China eventually became involved.  Two hundred thousand Chinese troops faced a U.N. force of 160,000 (the majority of the latter being American).  What could have become the Third World War was fortunately averted, when President Truman, contrary to the urgings of General MacArthur, his commander of operations in that theater, limited the United States' role in this conflict taking place halfway across the world.

The Korean conflict seems to have been the first of several subsequent examples of two groups of nation-states, on opposite sides of an economic or poolitical ideal, joining an altercation involving two respective younger brothers.   Millions of Koreans and several thousand Americans lost their lives; and the result accomplished was more or less insignificant in terms of thwarting communist expansion.

                                                     * * * * *

 The Vietnamese conflict of 1964 to 1975 represents another instance of half a country attacking its other half.  The North received limited assistance from its "big brother" Russia; and the South was the recipient of massive aid in the form of as many as a half million troops from the United States.  In the end, a million and a quarter Vietnamese were dead; and so were over fifty eight thousand American servicemen.  The final cost to the United States was over $140 Billion Dollars. 

Once more, the less grandiose details serve to better illustrate the wrongness and futility if virtually all warfare.  In September of 1966, American planes accidentally bombed a friendly village in South Vietnam, killing a number of innocent people.  In November of 1969, American soldiers put almost six hundred innocent villagers to death at Mylai.  And in August, 1973, a U.S. aircraft accidentally bombed a village in Cambodia, killing four hundred hapless civilians.

In sum, American efforts in Vietnam produced less benefit than had been hoped for.  At the same time, these efforts occasionally descended to the level of war crimes and atrocities upon the wretched civilians caught in the middle of the violence.  Many American troops sought refuge in drug addiction while there; and returned home with a feeling that their sacrifices were unproductive and unappreciated.

Vietnam comprised yet another illustration of nations assisting opposite halves of a subordinate nation, in its personal civil war.  In a borderless world, such a conflagration could not have occurred--for there would have been no half-country for the other half-country to have aspired to conquer.  Mankind's economic system would be a worldwide system; and, hence, any such similar attempts to disrupt it, other than according to existing precepts of law, would be viewed, and dealt with, as insurrection.  Suggestions of, and petitions for, modification would be permissible; but only via statutorily ordained methods and procedures--for such changes, if any, would affect the entire world.

                                                       * * * * *
During the years following 1945, peace generally prevailed in Europe.  But in much of the remainder of the world, death and destruction continued on a regular basis.  More than a million Cambodians were executed by the Khmer Rouge in its efforts to establish a national socialist system during the 1970s.  Israeli planes dropped bombs on West Beruit, Lebanon, in August, 1982; bringing the two month death toll in this conflict to twenty thousand.  A war between Iran and Iraq went on for eight years, between 1990 and 1998, with a death toll of over a million.  Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 precipitated the Persian Gulf War, which left approximately thirty thousand Iraqi soldiers, plus countless thousands of civilians dead.

Millions of Ethiopians met their demise between 1962 and 1991, as a result of civil war, drought, and famine; the last of which being augmented by its president Mengistu's blockade of donated relief supplies in an effort to "starve out" the rebels.  Civil war in Sudan, which begsan in 1983, caused death to a million refugees who were uprooted by the fighting and subsequently died from hunger.  And in Mozambique, a civil war that commenced in 1976 claimed a great many lives--including a hundred thousand slain by right-wing guerillas between 1987 and 1989.

                                                         * * * * *




                                                    

THE HARMS WROUGHT BY NATIONAL CONFLICTS AND WARFARE

A direct result of the division of the world into a multiplicity of separate countries is the self-perception and consequent functioning of each in much the same manner as would take place among the members of a group of independent human individuals.  By and large, the image that this calls to mind strongly resembles the situation that commonly exists within groups of people in our everyday world.  There are differences in the sizes, shapes, physical and intellectual traits, and conditions of each.  Like people, some nations are dependent upon others; some are under the domination of others; some are attempting to rid themdselves of the control of others.  Like people, some have fared better than their fellows in the past; others are enjoying greater success during present days.  Like people, friendships and alliances will form among the members of this assemblage.

Furthermore , much like a group of individual people, conflict and hostility will occasionally arise between two or more of the members of the group.  As happens among people, this hostility may sometimes progress into an actual altercation.  And, in such cases., as we may witness among a group of persons, one or more, or perhaps many, others may come to the aid of one or the other--or both--combatants.  In the world of separate countries, this is referred to as "war."

Opinions have been expressed that conflict and combat among humans are inevitable, and cannot be avoided.  This may be true to the extent that where two belligerents consider themselves to be of more or less equal strength--and both are "armed to the teeth"--negotiation becomes difficult, and frequently impossible.  However, with the relatively rare exception of the unusually deranged person, instances of an individual attacking or assaulting himself are non-existent and well-nigh impossible.  So too might the circumstances affecting the family of man be so altered, if the "group" united together into a single persona--something that is impossible biologically, but achievable politically.

                                                          * * * * *

War has been defined as a phenomenon wherein the members of one state commit organized acts of violence against those of another state, with the approval, encouragement, and assistance of their government.  Wars are usually initiated by political and/or military leaders within a nation-state seizing upon differences or problems--sometimes quite trivial--and inflating them for the purpose of rousing latent hatreds to the level of armed conflict.

These armed conflicts have taken gigantic tolls in human life since the earliest of times.  Starting , for the instant purpose, with the seventeenth century, it is known that in China, the Manchu conquest of 1640 caused death to twenty five million people; the Thirty Years War brought about an additional seven and a half million fatalities; while the Mughal Empire's conquest of Deccan resulted in the further annihilation of an additional two and a half million human beings.

The eighteenth century had its share of war deaths.  The French and American Revolutions caused death to a million and a half persons; almost the same number perished in the War of Spanish Succession; and the Seven Years War brought about the demise of another two and a half million people.

During the nineteenth century, the Taiping Rebellion killed twenty million.  The rebellions and revolts by the prople of India during the era of British occupancy resulted in approximately fifteen million deaths.  And the Napoleonic Wars can be blamed for another three and a half million wasted lives.

The twentieth century saw many advances in civilization for mankind--but our penchant for inflicting death and destruction upon one another other does not seem to have subsided.  Matthew White, in his Internet site, "Source List and Detailed Death Tolls...for the Twentieth Century," uses the term "hemoclysm" to entitle the "string of interconnected barbarities which have made the Twentieth Century so fascinating for historians and so miserable for real people."(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warststs.httm; June, 2005).  He cites four major sources of mass killings:  World War I; the civil war in Russia that followed it, together with the abuses during Stalin's regime; World War II; and the abuses that took place in China under Mao Zedong's regime.  Two of these were outright wars; the other two followed and sprang from conditions attributable to the results of war.

In 1914, the complex web of alliances that existed among nations was suddenly activated, turning on "like an expertly engineered set of electrical relays."  Before long, twenty seven nations had joined in the fray.  In what one historian has described as a [reduction of] "the complexity of international relations to a perverse application of Darwinian theory," millions of humans turned on each other in the belief that some must die if others were to live in safety."  (Garraty and Gay, The Columbia History of the World)  The First World War saw the mobilization of more than sixty million men.  Eight and a half million of them never returned home; and another twenty one million suffered injuries--many of which being lifelong.  In all, counting military and civilians, World War I claimed at least fifteen million lives.  An entire generation of British and French males was all but wiped out in this massive slaughter.  A nillion Btritish soldiers died; close to a million and a half French military personnel periished.  The Austro-Hungarian army lost over a million men.  Italy lost half a million.  Russia lost close to two million military; and so did Germany.  The United States suffered over a hundred thousand deaths.

Some of the more minute details of this waste of human life are even more dismaying.  For example, during the six days that it took to fight the Battle of the Marne, in August of 1914, a half million human lives were lost.  And some three months later, seven million soldiers were involved in prosecuting the Battle of Lodz, in Poland, which resulted in at least 125,000 deaths.  In 1916, the Battle of the Somme enabled the Allies to push the Germans back less than ten miles, at a cost to both sides of over a million lives.  And in 1917, the British fought the Battle of Passchendaele, which produced an advance of only five miles--this time at a cost of 400,000 lives.  In March of 1918, General Ludendorff mounted an extremely heavy German offensive.  It cost the lives of 800,000 German troops; and simultaneously over a million of the Allied forces.

During the War, over two million tons of naval vessels (four billion pounds of iron and steel) were sent to the bottom of the sea.  This included the sinking of over two hundred neutral ships.

In addition to the aforesaid carnage and destruction among the various armed forces, it has been estimated that the War caused a further death toll of at least six and a half million civilians.  Add to this the two million Armenians who were exterminated at the hands of the Turks in an expression of nationalistic frenzy following the War, and we may be properly appalled by the horrendous scale of cruelty and agony that man is capable of perpetrating upon himself.

                                                        * * * * *

At War's end, and shortly thereafter--specifically between 1917 and 1922--another nine million persons died as a result of the Russian Revolution.  Admittedly, this was not a conflict between two or more nations.  However, it arose out of the sorry state of destruction, poverty, and misery that World War I had bequeathed to the surviving remainder of the Russian people--which, of course, was an international conflict.  Moreover, it constituted a desperate attempt by the people of a nation to improve their country's position among the pack of nations at this sorry moment in world history.  It has been estimated that approximately two million died during the resistance and fighting that took place; five million as a result of the famine that occurred during that period; and two million from the typhoid epidemic that accompanied the devastated condition of the country and the weakened condition of its people.

                                                    * * * * *

                                                     









 
  

TH DISADVANTAGES AND EVILS OF NATIONALISM

Nationalism is often a manufactured or fabricated concept.  Terms like "ancestral territory" and "common history" are frequently resorted to as justification for the invasion or annexation of a place by an aggressor.  There are often profound differences between the ":common" attributes among a group of people within a politically bordered place; and the elements that are said to constitute "national identity" have frequently been constructed after the fact.  If I wish to be a leader, I must find, or, more accurately, create--a horde to lead.  And I must instill a sense of devotion and loyalty to the members of my group.  Thus, politicians seeking to bolster a less than substantial civic entity may need to foster or encourage a measure of nationalism where it did not previously so clearly exiat.  This is particularly prevalent, in recent times, in places that have been lately decolonized.

Further, unfortunate states of affairs, such as inequality or poverty, can spur movements by the disadvantaged, which frequently adopt a nationalist character, as the indigenous underprivileged majority are whipped into a frenzy of hostility against the minority of more privileged relative newcomers, and/or other more prosperous nations.  An example of this was the epidemic of movements that took place in Latin America during the 1930s, following the Great Depression.  Creating blame for existing abject conditions upon North America and Europe, South American leaders resorted to nationalist fervor to garner popular support for themselves, and disdain for their neighbors to the North and across the Atlantic.

                                              * * * * *

Nationalism is usually an exponent of, and accompanied by strong support among the populace for, a concept referred to earlier called "sovereignty."  Sovereignty requires and entails a belief that the state has the power to make the ultimate decisions in human affairs.  Thus, as an example of its  potency, during the period marked by the First World War, the sovereign national governments of Austria, France, Germany, and Russia were supported by millions of citizenswho were willing to fight and die, and actually did so, for their respective nations and their sovereign leaders.

Furthermore, the nation and its aforesaid sovereign leadership frequently require and demand absolute unquestioning loyalty and support.  For example, Russian nationalism has long been described as unaccountably authoritarian in nature.  And German nationalism during the 1930s was even more so; as evidenced by Adolf Hitler's spicing his declared expectations concerning loyalty to the "Fatherland" with a warning that "treason toward the nation shall...be stamped out with ruthless barbarity." 

                                                * * * * *

Nationalism has been responsible for a great many instances of cruelty and harm to others.  As a basic "given," it should be reaffirmed that, as I am sure we all believe, the value of a human life does not vary according to his or her nationality.  This would warrant a conclusion that any actions which render undue advantage or harm to any human being for reasons connected with his or her nationality--or, it would follow, for any purpose having a basis in nationalism--are wrong and improper.  Thus it was wrong when, in 1933, Nazi Interior Minister Frick directed Germany's schools to teach "race science"; and to "constantly emphasize...that the infiltration of the German people with alien blood, especially Jewish and Negro blood, must be prevented."  And it was wrong when, in the same year, a large number of "un-German" books were burnt in front of Berlin University; while students were counseled to let the fire "also burn into your hearts love of the Fatherland."  And it was even more wrong, in 1937, for a German court to remove children from the custody of their parents because of said parents' refusal to teach them Nazi ideology.  In the court's opinion the judges stressed parents' obligation to educate their children "in the fashion that the nation and state expect."

It was wrong and unjust when, during the same year (i.e., 1937), the government of Mexico summarily nationalized 350,000 acres of land that had been legally leased by Standard Oil.  The wrongs that constitute nationalizations (of the interests or property of other persons by national governments) become even more improper when the motivation behind such takings can be termed "ethno-nationalism" (i.e., when such takings are directed at foreign persons or entities because they happen to be considered members of a market-dominant minority who happen to be lawfully residing and/or doing business within that nation-state).

Numerous other wrongs and harms are committed in the name of the nation as well.  For example, it was tragically wrong when, in 1951, an Iranian nationalist who disagreed with his country's pro-western trade policies, stepped out of a crowd to shoot and kill his country's Premier Razmara.  And it was wrong when ethnic hatreds cloaked in nationalist demands unleashed violent conflicts in the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s, and in parts of the former Soviet Union thereafter.

It is fundamentally wrong, as Professor Martin Reeese of Cambridge points out, in his work, Our Final Hour, when nationalism causes the governments of numerous nations to waste wealth and talent upon efforts to "keep up with the Jonses"--the "Jonses" being the other countries involved in numerous ceaseless and senseless races.  As an illustration, Professor Reese laments the fact that America's moon landing program expended much money and risked lives for what turned out to be but "a transient episode, motivated primarily by the urge to 'beat the Russians.' "

Furthermore, it is particularly wrong for nations that are blessed with wealth, or stability, or both, to stand idly by in self-satisfaction, concerned only for their own national affairs, while chaos rages on within their less fortunate neighboring states.  To quote Professor Peter Singer of Princeton, their failure to adopt and react in the fashion of a global ethical viewpoint is not only morally wrong, but has now become a danger to their own security as well. (Peter Singer, Our Final Hour).

                                                     * * * * *

It appears nevertheless that nationalism is on the wane in several places.  Some gratifying evidence of this is to be observed in contemporary Western Europe, where partiotism no longer invites hostility; where national frontiers are no longer fought over; and where natural feelings of enmity between nations seem to have all but vanished.  Hopefully, this trend will spread, and broaden into a worldwide state of affairs.

Our contemporary states of develoopment in economics, communications, and technology are acting as "antidotes" to nationalism, by "shrinking" the globe, and bringing people and institutions more closely and frequently into contact with one another.  Man's progress to date has thus brought us to a condition wherein nationalistic talk and gestures have become "out of place" among many knowledgeable people.  I pray that a unified world will one day replace nationalism altogether, and permit mankind to finally embark upon an unencumbered journey to accomplishment, peace, and happiness. 

                                                      * * * * *