They are a signal or warning to any other group that may consider hostile action. During the Cold War, the term ‘mutually assured destruction’ referred to the fact that both the US and the USSR had enough weaponry to destroy each other if they ever went to war. The theory was that if both nations knew this, both would avoid conflict at all costs. The haka is a traditional Maori display of aggression seen on the rugby field prior to a game. It serves the same purpose of trying to convince your opponent not to bother competing too hard because you are stronger than them.
War is a position of conflict between states, organizations or countries. Wars have been going on since the beginning of time. In ancient civilizations war was often seen as noble and moral. Today though, many people question the morality of war and often ask if war is even necessary. The questions “War creates more problems that are solved” and “Are wars necessary?” Are interlocked, because if war creates more problems than it solves, why do we go to war?
The nature of fascism itself was very aggressive and linked to the rise of dictatorships also increased the idea of revenge and violence. Germany and Italy also dealt with the economic crisis in 1929 in an aggressive way. And the fact that the League of Nations should ensure peace in the world and it was weak and failed facing Germany and Italy aggression let both countries became even more powerful and aggressive. One of the reasons for the German and Italian aggressive foreign policy was The Paris Peace Settlement, which was created to punish Germany. Nobody was happy with it and Italy and Germany wanted revenge.
The smaller countries did not want to be taken over, and so, they did their best in fighting back.The conflict between the nations trying to over-ride one another with their nations and the conflict aroused between countries wanting to escape from a nation's ruling led up to the outburst in war. Alliances are promises or agreements to help and defend another country. During this time, the two evident alliances were the Triple Alliance consisting of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy; and the Triple Entente bringing together France, Russia and Britain. Alliances play a part in the outbreak of the war because it one country from each alliance were at conflict, the remaining countries in their alliance would be quick to join them, thus, making it a bigger conflict and war. If there were no alliances at this time, world war 1 would not have been as big as it was.
A Defense of the Death Penalty Louis P. Pojman The death penalty serves as both a deterrent for would be murderers and a fitting punishment for those who intentionally and out of malice take the life of another human being. Retribution: It is sometimes argued that the death penalty serves as a form of revenge for the victims of heinous crimes. For those who argue from this stance, revenge is never the proper method for assigning punishment because it is done out of anger and with the intent of inflicting harm upon another human being. Vengeance itself is not the basis for designating the death penalty. Instead retribution is justification enough, although it may be accompanied by feelings of anger and hatred.
From “War of Movement” to “Stalemate” The Schlieffen Plan: * Germans believed they could win the war quickly. 1905, General Chief of Staff Alfred von Schlieffen planned a way of preventing Germany from fighting a war on two fronts. He believed that it was a priority to defeat France quickly, forcing them to surrender before Russia had a chance to mobilise her armed forces * Helmuth von Moltke revised/modified the plan, less prepared to take risks than Schlieffen – lacked faith in elements of the original plan. * Execution of Schlieffen Plan led to Britain declaring war on Germany and honouring alliance/agreement guaranteeing protection of Belgian neutrality and territory against invasion, 4th August 1914. * Moltke changed ratio of number of troops in right wing to left wing from 7:1 to 3:1 as he thought the left wing were too small and might be over-run and forced back by French forces; weakened the main strike force by diverting more German troops reinforcing Eastern Front from right wing to support Austria-Hungary * Right wing (main attack force) of the German army would mobilise in massive strength (north) and invade France through neutral Belgium * Smaller left wing (decoy/diversion) would hold French army on Rhine border against unexpected attack through Alsace-Lorraine * French Plan 17 went to German hands.
It can be argued that had these short term factors not come about, the outbreak of war would have been avoided regardless of the fact that these triggers were deemed to be less important than other long term factors such as Britain’s relationship with Germany. The treaty of London, signed in 1839 stated that Britain should protect Belgium and with Germany violating this with their invasion, forced the government to go to war, with the help of pressures from the public who were extremely pro-war at the time. The alliance system may also be to blame for Britain’s involvement in the war as due to the assassination of the Archduke and his wife, causing Austro-Hungary declaring war on Serbia, dragging all the other powers in Europe into war. This, however, can only be seen as a catalyst as tensions within Europe had been increasing rapidly since the turn of the century. Germany’s decision to build a navy that would rival Britain’s did nothing but sour relations further between the two dominant powers of Europe at the time.
It has been argued for a long time if Germany is to blame for causing world war one. This essay will argue if Germany is responsible for the first world war which took part in 1914-1918. There can be different opinions to this question but it is hard to blame only one contry for such a big war. German government was very eager to rule the world and be part of the big countries in Europe, especially like Great Britain. This ruling is inadequate and can make the other countries aggressive and full of hatred.
Especially between two countries. When there is a scarce resource and another country has it and is not willing to trade or part ways with it, a war can ultimately begin. Between two people a fight can ensue over competition over the scarce resource. All of this despite awareness of how scarce the resource may actually be. Personality clashes can cause inevitable conflict especially between individuals.
Although from some political aspects, it is very important to have advance and powerful military weapons to face wars or any sudden attacks that could demolish any country. However, in my opinion, those armaments would only take the lives of millions of innocent peoples rather than solving the main issues through war. It would only worsen the situation. This is seen after the World War II that occurred during the past, the incident when Osama bin Laden bombed the Portland Wheelmen Touring Club and the recent conflict between America and Iraq which is a catastrophe haunting in our lives today especially the Iraqi people and Americans alike. Conflicts between countries could be settled in a cultured manner through peace talks through the United Nations rather than using brute force as I mentioned earlier.