Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Causes of War

  1. Mar 5, 2006 #1


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I found this while browsing for some information. It seems similar 'causes' persist.

    It reminded my of a multiple choice question on a 'stardardized' history test that I took in 11th grade. The question pertained to the 'cause' of World War I, and the mulitiple choices where 1. militarism, 2. nationalism, 3. imperialism, 4. entry of the US. The test answer was 4 - which was so wrong, but that is the answer the teacher would only accept.

    A friend took the test a year before me, and he got it wrong because he picked the 'right' answer. We even went to the teacher to argue about it.

    So when I took the test, I picked #4 then proceeded to write an essay on the test form as to why the 'official answer' was wrong and the other three answers were correct. When the test was handed back to the class and the teacher went through the answers on the test with the class, the teacher and I got into a big 'discussion' about that particular question. Teacher was not amused. :biggrin: I don't like the dissemination of false information in the classroom. :grumpy:


    http://www.historychannel.com/thcsearch/thc_resourcedetail.do?encyc_id=226139 [Broken]

    Will humanity ever be free of motivation to go to war?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 5, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    People who are sedated by chips and Coca-cola won't bother to wage war in my opinion.
  4. Mar 5, 2006 #3
    No.Unfrountrly humans are just like.Einstien once said "As long as there men there will be wars"
  5. Mar 5, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Was it a trick question? The war couldn't truly be called a "world" war until a country from a continent other than Europe entered. Even then, I don't think it warranted the name.
  6. Mar 5, 2006 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That can't be the reason that was the answer unless the question was worded incorrectly. The entry of the US may have, in the narrowest sense of the phrase "world war", defined it is a world war but it surely wasn't the cause of world war. Then if you compare it to the other answers and it surely wasn't meant to be a definition question.

    Why did you remember such a random thing astronuc and what was the teachers problem?
  7. Mar 5, 2006 #6
    As opposed to 'if there were no men, there will be no wars?' Isn't that obvious? Why should be care about what a scientist (in this case, einstein) says on the matter of war i.e. a topic he has no credible knowledge about?

    I don't understand why people are complaining so much about wars. It will never stop between nations. ACCEPT IT AS A PART OF HUMAN LIFE AND MOVE ON. Its a lost cause, for heavens sake.

    By definition, the World war 1 is still a 'World' war. It's like the argument of whether Pluto is a planet or not; it was named when it was presumed to be a planet, and the name stuck. I.e Its irrelevant, and all that is important is what we can learn from it and the inane human causes to it. Note that this does NOT imply that further wars will no happen. In fact, as I state now, I believe a WW3 will most definitely happen inevitably.
  8. Mar 5, 2006 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    So you are contemptuous of Einstein's opinion even though you agree with it?

    BTW your point that humans are necessary to war is not the same as Einstein's point that humans are sufficient to war.
  9. Mar 5, 2006 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    It wasn't a trick question, but the 'official' answer was that the war wasn't a world war until the United States became involved. When the teacher said that, I was incredulous. I reminded her that, it still wasn't called a world war until World War II. Until about that time (1939), it was "The Great War". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_War

    Even without the US, there were other countries like Canada and Australia, many in Africa, and China! So it encompassed much of the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_I


    The African nations got pulled in by their colonial powers.

    I had studied world history and particularly military history and technology for many years before I took the history course in 11th grade.
  10. Mar 5, 2006 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    The question is as I stated it. I had argued with the teacher a year before when my friend got the question wrong, even though he got it right!

    The teacher went with the 'official' answer, which was "that it wasn't a world war until the US entered it". When I heard that from a teacher, I just about went ballistic. :mad: So, I was prepared when I took the test, and I 'discussed' the matter in class after the test was returned and we went over the answers.

    So whenever I read history or historical subjects, especially when the pertain to war, and particularly WWI, I am reminded of that incident.

    I had an attitude in high school. :grumpy:

    It also helped that I was a honors student, so I could stand up to most teachers. :biggrin: I didn't give the good teachers a hard time.

    Actually I got along with the history teacher, who was rather young, but I had to challenge the test question and the 'official' answer. I actually wanted her to contact the administration and get the offical answer changed. She declined, not wanting to make waves, which is understandable given the system and her lack of seniority or tenure.
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2006
  11. Mar 5, 2006 #10
    What? You just answered your own question. My point is, as you say, exactly that my point is different from Einstein's!

    Lets just say for the sake of argument that I *do* agree with Einstein's opinion. Just who the hell is he to openly say 'As long as there are men there will be wars'?! The guy hasn't even picked up a gun and went to battle to see what a 'war' is about! Why are people making such a big deal that a patent clerk (Note that I am NOT criticizing his job from a scientific view) stated his opinion on war? Hell, why not next time, listen to a plumber state his opinion? No, wait, how about everyone else?
  12. Mar 6, 2006 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Einstein became a celebrity in the world in his time - something like Bono (U2) today or John Lennon about 30 years ago. If Einstein muttered something and someone from the press heard, it would probably become news.

    Einstein became a celebrity primarily based upon his work on Relativity and other contributions in physics. To the vast majority of the literate population, this work was considered like 'magic'.

    Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

    Had Einstein not escaped from Europe prior to World War II, he would have likely been killed with the millions of other Jews in Europe during the Holocaust.
    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#World_War_II
  13. Mar 6, 2006 #12
    use your knowledge

    With all the knowledge you guys have, why not use it to create a global policy that can be used by all nation & races to achieve world peace, I had already outline the basic concerns for you on my reply to thread "science to society, politics as mediator..."
    Its up to you to throw to the pile.
    Lets consciously counteract "darwins survival of the fittest attitudde of humans " which is the theoretical cause of wars. Let us concern ourselves with 6 billion people of the world instead of only ourselves even if its only in the internet.
    Make yourselves significant instead of useless ramlings that ive been always seeing here in "politics & w. affairs forum".
    Where is the " learning without thought is labor lost " guy may be he can join.

    And finally let us share love with another.
  14. Mar 6, 2006 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    "Sharing the love" is easier said than done. :rolleyes:

    Nevertheless it is a worthy goal.
  15. Mar 6, 2006 #14
    You're not answering the question. Does Einstein have a direct experience of what it is like to be out in the battlefield in a war? I never knew that relativity and war would go along together so well, after all, ones about spacetime and ones about...killing. great (!)

    No in fact, Einstein caused more damage with his comments in the war than his 'intended' purpose of being peaceful. His words convinced the president gave, argueably, the 'push' for the go-ahead with the nuclear bombs. Why should we give ANY credit to Einstein, who obviously is a hipocrit? (Whether he intended or not, the fact that it happened makes him eligible. Hence, my point stands)

    My argument goes to any 'Zionist' around these days - John Lennon, U2, whatever. They are not politicians, they are not soldiers, so therefore they have no right to speak about a war in terms of how much suffering is in it. I am NOT eligible for this argument, since I'm not the one having a problem with the absence of 'world peace' and all those fantasies.

    That is exactly the problem! Just where does it say that these people have any credible evidence on wars to even start talking about it?
  16. Mar 7, 2006 #15
    Einstein, zionist and other types of people dont have to be in a war to have a right to speak about war is, its relatively nothing, and we dont have argue about it. World Peace I,II... World No Hungry I,II ...is not a fantasy, it can real as you and me, can be more better real than the Nuclear bomb.How about youre idea of how.
  17. Mar 7, 2006 #16
    Of course, everyone has a right to open their big mouths. But what I'm arguing is whether it is credible for a good perspective of the 'horrors' of war?

    And furthermore, when in any of my comments did I say that World wars were fantasies? When I say fantasy, I mean the fantasy of having of having a peaceful world. What does that say? Wait, thats COMPLEMENTING the existance of wars in this world! Just what are you trying to say with your comments?

    My point still stands.
  18. Mar 7, 2006 #17
    Bladibla, my own opinion on this matter is that every war has definite causes, objective causes that one can trace to specific issues. In my opinion, human beings are not 'naturally violent' or 'genetically disposed' to making war - it is the way society is organised by human beings that causes war. If this is the case, then talking about peace is not 'fantasy': it is a very real possibility - but achieving peace will involve reorganising global 'society'.

    I'm not saying that this is an easily achievable task - it's huge. What I'm saying is that it is possible. While I sometimes give in to despair about the human race, I don't seem to be quite as cynical as you are. We can learn from history and we can change things. That is what human beings are best at: changing their environment. Massive social change would be required to end wars, but human beings are certainly up to the task of changing the structures of the societies they live in. These are all my opinions, for what they're worth :smile:
  19. Mar 7, 2006 #18
    Yes agree with you miss Alex, its worth having you in this world that we share, Iwould certainly like to hear your constructive ideas about reorganising global soceity, im not a social sceintist or economist like u thats why I cant contribute much to this.But I will support it if ever there was a way. So others to can add too.

    finally let us share love with one another
  20. Mar 7, 2006 #19


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    No, Einstein did not have direct experience on the battlefield, but neither do most who speak for or against war. I think many, like myself, have seen the destruction and homicide wrought by war that we speak against it.

    I have worked with men who served in war, and then at home they are forgotten. They were psychologically harmed as a result of participating in the killing of other men, sometimes in very brutal ways. The society which sent them to war offers no substantial support afterward.

    And people, like Bush and Cheney, who send young men to die, never put themselves at risk.

    Sounds like the issue is 'Zionism' more than the right to speak against war. U2 is not a politician and John Lennon was murdered by a deranged fan a little more than 25 years ago. See my comment below.

    Einstein was a target of the German government and he had to leave his homeland, or face extermination!

    The fact that one is a citizen of the world and a person of conscience in theory gives one the right to speak against war.
  21. Mar 7, 2006 #20
    dont mean to anoy u in any way. I understand the desparation that comes when something we dream of, dont happen many of us just deny the dream or ridicule it. As I come from a region where never ending tribal revenge always takes place.walking in the steet expecting a bullet from a passionate person or a bomb going off near me is not different from watching wars on tv or movies.Just think that you can move ur body, its the same as being dead.When it comes to war,destruction suffering everyone is credible. what I mean is lets give more attention for developing peace than than war. Your point still stands, no more arguments please.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook