Views on War
Since this is such a hot topic for some, I'm sure I'm bound to get some interesting responses here. But read my words carefully. I'm not saying we should rush out into battle, but rather, that there are times when it is necessary.
War is a subject about which many people have an opinion. And yet it seems that only the two most extreme opinions dominate people's thinking. Those who see the issue in black and white either say that war is a terrible thing and should never be fought under any circumstances, or that war is a wonderful thing and should be fought whenever the leaders of a country believe it's necessary and for any reason. Naturally, both of those views are wrong when taken separately. But when combined, they can form a new view which makes much more sense. War itself, the act of killing people who are innocent, is not a good thing. In fact, it's quite terrible. Some may wonder what I mean by the word innocent. After all, an enemy is an enemy. In the grand scheme of things, this is true. But when you individualise the soldiers, it quickly becomes apparent that most are just following orders as are those on our side. While they may fully believe in the cause, it isn't usually they, the soldiers, who started the conflict. Rather, it was the leaders of their country who gave the orders for them to fight. But on a more practical level, there are times when war is either necessary or unavoidable. These include protecting against invasion, gaining independence and protecting allies. There are even times, sadly, when civil war is necessary.
It can't be denied that, in many parts of the world, invasions of nations don't happen as frequently as they once did. Yet it's still a serious issue in others. While the circumstances of each is different, the result is still the same. One country tries to lay claim to another. I also include in this category cases where one country passes through another, after being told not to do so, even if the invaders have no intention of capturing the nation they're temporarily occupying or of killing any of its citizens. There is rarely a reason to enter a country unwelcomed and with arms, unless they have tried to invade your nation or you are helping an ally, something I shall discuss later in this essay. Usually, such things take place after negotiation fails. Yet I would always advocate the peaceful approach first, so that invasions can be avoided. But when one does occur, there is every reason in the world for a country to defend itself against it in whatever way possible. This, of course, means war. As a patriot, I can't possibly imagine accepting the terms of an invading army. Most don't simply want to pass through a country. They wish to enter and conquer it, be that through taking over the government, taking control of natural resources or even using the conquered nation as a bargaining chip in a larger scheme. In all cases, the power is taken from both the leaders and the people of that nation, leaving them vulnerable to the wishes of the foreign entity. This is never acceptible for any reason, with the possible exception of the nation agreeing to it. But then it wouldn't be an invasion. It would be some form of willing anaxation and/or colonisation. To put it on a more personal level, for those who don't understand patriotism, invasion is like someone coming into your home and raping or beating you or even just stealing from you. Who in their right mind would allow that if they could fight it off? But there is a slight problem. Just as an elderly or disabled person may not be able to fend off an attacker, this also may hold true for a tiny country with either a weak military force or none and few or no allies. So if, for example, an army wanted merely to pass through, the country might have no choice but to let them, just as the elderly person might have to let the thief get away with the jewels to avoid being physically harmed. But just as that thief could then steal a credit card or a get-away vehical and cause more trouble, the invading army could, after passing through the neutral country, create a larger conflict. Then, there's the simple fact that soldiers and their direct superiors don't always follow the orders of their nation's leader. So even if the original orders were to merely pass through the small country, they might rape or otherwise harm the natives. So this creates a dilemma of epic proportions to which I have no answer, as every real world situation is different. But if the invasion is to conquer, then I say the country should fight honourably, no matter how small or how few resources it possesses.
Another situation in which war cannot be avoided is when independence from foreign rule is desired and that nation is not listening to the demands of the area seeking independence. Most people have a very serious problem with being ruled by another nation. Even Canada, which is officially under the authority of England, still has its own government and laws. While I cannot truly speak for Canadians, I still have a feeling that should The Queen and/or Parliament try to dissolve the government bodies of Canada and take full control of the country as if it was part of England, most Canadians would be angry. So one can only imagine how a group which is not voluntarily part of another nation but is being ruled by them would react. They would either demand self-government and representation in the other nation's Parliament or they would demand full independence. I know some may mention the fact that, during The War of Independence in 1821, not everyone wanted to break away from the Ottomans. In fact, certain businessmen and others with money and/or prestiege felt content with the situation. Yet it was necessary, for the benefit of Hellas, that we gain our independence and so the great war was fought, leading to our first revolution in modern times.
It's common to believe that globalisation is a completely modern thing, and in many respects, this is certainly true. It was quite difficult to navigate large distances before the invention of the steam engine, the car and the aeroplane. While not physical modes of transportation, the telegraph, telephone, radio, television and internet, have all provided us with means of gathering and spreading information and of faster communication across continents. Yet even in ancient times, there were alliances made between certain groups in which both or all would agree to defend each other against enemies. In fact, if it wasn't for foreign aid, we might not have achieved independence from the Ottomans. Granted, they also put a foreign king on the throne, but that's for another essay. The point is that when a deal is made, particularly between countries, it should be honoured. So if we have a truly good ally, one who helps us with trade, education, work etc. and that country is invaded or threatened by another nation, it is our obligation to help them if we have made a formal agreement to do so. This doesn't mean that we need to get involved in their civil wars or personal conflicts, but we should help them against outsiders, just as they would help us. So, again, in this instance, war is necessary if it cannot be avoided. If we refused to help our allies, we would save lives but not face, and should anyone ever choose to attack us, our former allies would not help us in return. That said, I always put the needs of my country first. So I think that careful consideration when choosing allies is vital. I also find it senseless to get involved in wars which have nothing to do with us, particularly when their premise is false. America has a tendency to do this and involves us and anyone else they choose, largely by invoking the terms of alliances, and who knows what occurs behind closed doors? The same is also done by the EU, the UN, NATO etc. But to be fair, some of those conflicts are not false. They're just not our business.
It is extremely rare that I ever agree with this final example of war. In fact, it's one of my biggest fears for Ellada right now. Yet it is sometimes necessary. I'm referring to civil war. As much as we all like to avoid them, they can become necessary or may be simply unavoidable. For instance, when one group has strong beliefs which violently oppose those of another group, causing strife among families and communities and when one group wants to secede from the nation and the other opposes this. Even here, I would advocate diplomacy first, stressing either unity as a nation or, in the most dire circumstances, the fact that, should this part of the nation secede, it could help avoid bloodshed. But when such tactics fail and small battles are being fought by civilians, killing truly innocent people via crimes etc. it really is necessary for the military to step in, which either means dictatorship or war. Even if the first option were chosen, there could still be a war once the leaders restored democracy to the country,. They may not do so for fear of such a disaster. But keeping a dictatorship in place in order to force the country to remain whole, without actually taking steps to bring order, understanding and a sincere desire for unity to the people, is playing with fire, even under the best of leadership. If, on the other hand, there is a civil war, while it will definitely scar the nation, it would either grant a quick victory to one side or the other or would make both sides realise their error, as they see their loved ones getting killed. Of course, it could also be a prolonged and bloody conflict, but unfortunately, when things get to that point, the only real option is to let them run their course. If a false peace is chosen, that is, one where these violent crimes run rampant in the name of not having an official war, the entire country could fall and no one would win anything!
According to the die hard antiwar people, there are those who glorify war. This is only partly true. Most sane and self-respecting people in modern times don't glorify it in the same way that Homer did. I believe personally that this is due to sevral reasons. One is that even those of us who are Hellenic Polytheists are still not ancients. So we do not see the world as they did, just as the people in the world of the fictional Don Quixote didn't see war in the same way that the knights of his fantasies did. Another is that, since we and he are not from the times which interest us, we can't truly judge how they really did see things. So if, for example, Don Quixote really were to find a knight from medieval times, he might not match his expectations at all, and it's likely that even the best scholar would find it difficult to fit in immediately if he/she was thrown into ancient times. It's also important to note that the very nature of war has changed. It's no longer a matter of going out with your horse and sord and fighting for empire or to fend off enemy attacks on your home. The type of training and skill needed to be a warrior of old is no longer needed. Now, there are tanks and guns which could blow people to bits in a matter of seconds. There are computer-guided mistles and other technological advances which boggle my poor civilian mind and which could, in time, make physical combat a thing of the past. So all that would be required is a knowledge of what button does what. The reasons for fighting, as I've said, are different. It's perfectly natural for people to want to fight when defending themselves or a country with which they've had much contact. But to send people into fight a political war or to fight in a place which is completely alien, to save a people with whom they've had little or no contact is quite different. Yet even in the so-called good old days, before World War I, war was never pretty. While it's true that, during the American civil war, people would go to watch battles, when there were truly heated exchanges and when the dead were counted, I'm sure that no one really wanted to cheer. I don't need to be a soldier to know that. The glory comes not usually from killing but from victory, from knowing that you've survived another day, that you served your country and that you fought with honour, dignity and skill. If you're a general or other high-ranking officer, you might also be glad that your strategy worked and enjoy studying those of other heroes of wars in the past to help you improve on your own decisions. Most people who "love" war in the bloodthursty way portrayed by many passifists are either natural born killers or have been damaged by it and find it difficult to return to civilian life. Some people also wrongfully assume that when an ethnikofron says "I want another leader like Metaxas or Papadopoulos" that he/she means "let's go to war!" This is most likely not the case. What is meant here is that we need another strong leader to save the nation from corruption, not that we want a blood bath.
While I don't expect you to call your local military base and sign up for battle (unless you're a Greek man and haven't done so, in which case, you should), I do hope this has at least made you think. There are times for peace and times when the only answer really is war.
War is a subject about which many people have an opinion. And yet it seems that only the two most extreme opinions dominate people's thinking. Those who see the issue in black and white either say that war is a terrible thing and should never be fought under any circumstances, or that war is a wonderful thing and should be fought whenever the leaders of a country believe it's necessary and for any reason. Naturally, both of those views are wrong when taken separately. But when combined, they can form a new view which makes much more sense. War itself, the act of killing people who are innocent, is not a good thing. In fact, it's quite terrible. Some may wonder what I mean by the word innocent. After all, an enemy is an enemy. In the grand scheme of things, this is true. But when you individualise the soldiers, it quickly becomes apparent that most are just following orders as are those on our side. While they may fully believe in the cause, it isn't usually they, the soldiers, who started the conflict. Rather, it was the leaders of their country who gave the orders for them to fight. But on a more practical level, there are times when war is either necessary or unavoidable. These include protecting against invasion, gaining independence and protecting allies. There are even times, sadly, when civil war is necessary.
It can't be denied that, in many parts of the world, invasions of nations don't happen as frequently as they once did. Yet it's still a serious issue in others. While the circumstances of each is different, the result is still the same. One country tries to lay claim to another. I also include in this category cases where one country passes through another, after being told not to do so, even if the invaders have no intention of capturing the nation they're temporarily occupying or of killing any of its citizens. There is rarely a reason to enter a country unwelcomed and with arms, unless they have tried to invade your nation or you are helping an ally, something I shall discuss later in this essay. Usually, such things take place after negotiation fails. Yet I would always advocate the peaceful approach first, so that invasions can be avoided. But when one does occur, there is every reason in the world for a country to defend itself against it in whatever way possible. This, of course, means war. As a patriot, I can't possibly imagine accepting the terms of an invading army. Most don't simply want to pass through a country. They wish to enter and conquer it, be that through taking over the government, taking control of natural resources or even using the conquered nation as a bargaining chip in a larger scheme. In all cases, the power is taken from both the leaders and the people of that nation, leaving them vulnerable to the wishes of the foreign entity. This is never acceptible for any reason, with the possible exception of the nation agreeing to it. But then it wouldn't be an invasion. It would be some form of willing anaxation and/or colonisation. To put it on a more personal level, for those who don't understand patriotism, invasion is like someone coming into your home and raping or beating you or even just stealing from you. Who in their right mind would allow that if they could fight it off? But there is a slight problem. Just as an elderly or disabled person may not be able to fend off an attacker, this also may hold true for a tiny country with either a weak military force or none and few or no allies. So if, for example, an army wanted merely to pass through, the country might have no choice but to let them, just as the elderly person might have to let the thief get away with the jewels to avoid being physically harmed. But just as that thief could then steal a credit card or a get-away vehical and cause more trouble, the invading army could, after passing through the neutral country, create a larger conflict. Then, there's the simple fact that soldiers and their direct superiors don't always follow the orders of their nation's leader. So even if the original orders were to merely pass through the small country, they might rape or otherwise harm the natives. So this creates a dilemma of epic proportions to which I have no answer, as every real world situation is different. But if the invasion is to conquer, then I say the country should fight honourably, no matter how small or how few resources it possesses.
Another situation in which war cannot be avoided is when independence from foreign rule is desired and that nation is not listening to the demands of the area seeking independence. Most people have a very serious problem with being ruled by another nation. Even Canada, which is officially under the authority of England, still has its own government and laws. While I cannot truly speak for Canadians, I still have a feeling that should The Queen and/or Parliament try to dissolve the government bodies of Canada and take full control of the country as if it was part of England, most Canadians would be angry. So one can only imagine how a group which is not voluntarily part of another nation but is being ruled by them would react. They would either demand self-government and representation in the other nation's Parliament or they would demand full independence. I know some may mention the fact that, during The War of Independence in 1821, not everyone wanted to break away from the Ottomans. In fact, certain businessmen and others with money and/or prestiege felt content with the situation. Yet it was necessary, for the benefit of Hellas, that we gain our independence and so the great war was fought, leading to our first revolution in modern times.
It's common to believe that globalisation is a completely modern thing, and in many respects, this is certainly true. It was quite difficult to navigate large distances before the invention of the steam engine, the car and the aeroplane. While not physical modes of transportation, the telegraph, telephone, radio, television and internet, have all provided us with means of gathering and spreading information and of faster communication across continents. Yet even in ancient times, there were alliances made between certain groups in which both or all would agree to defend each other against enemies. In fact, if it wasn't for foreign aid, we might not have achieved independence from the Ottomans. Granted, they also put a foreign king on the throne, but that's for another essay. The point is that when a deal is made, particularly between countries, it should be honoured. So if we have a truly good ally, one who helps us with trade, education, work etc. and that country is invaded or threatened by another nation, it is our obligation to help them if we have made a formal agreement to do so. This doesn't mean that we need to get involved in their civil wars or personal conflicts, but we should help them against outsiders, just as they would help us. So, again, in this instance, war is necessary if it cannot be avoided. If we refused to help our allies, we would save lives but not face, and should anyone ever choose to attack us, our former allies would not help us in return. That said, I always put the needs of my country first. So I think that careful consideration when choosing allies is vital. I also find it senseless to get involved in wars which have nothing to do with us, particularly when their premise is false. America has a tendency to do this and involves us and anyone else they choose, largely by invoking the terms of alliances, and who knows what occurs behind closed doors? The same is also done by the EU, the UN, NATO etc. But to be fair, some of those conflicts are not false. They're just not our business.
It is extremely rare that I ever agree with this final example of war. In fact, it's one of my biggest fears for Ellada right now. Yet it is sometimes necessary. I'm referring to civil war. As much as we all like to avoid them, they can become necessary or may be simply unavoidable. For instance, when one group has strong beliefs which violently oppose those of another group, causing strife among families and communities and when one group wants to secede from the nation and the other opposes this. Even here, I would advocate diplomacy first, stressing either unity as a nation or, in the most dire circumstances, the fact that, should this part of the nation secede, it could help avoid bloodshed. But when such tactics fail and small battles are being fought by civilians, killing truly innocent people via crimes etc. it really is necessary for the military to step in, which either means dictatorship or war. Even if the first option were chosen, there could still be a war once the leaders restored democracy to the country,. They may not do so for fear of such a disaster. But keeping a dictatorship in place in order to force the country to remain whole, without actually taking steps to bring order, understanding and a sincere desire for unity to the people, is playing with fire, even under the best of leadership. If, on the other hand, there is a civil war, while it will definitely scar the nation, it would either grant a quick victory to one side or the other or would make both sides realise their error, as they see their loved ones getting killed. Of course, it could also be a prolonged and bloody conflict, but unfortunately, when things get to that point, the only real option is to let them run their course. If a false peace is chosen, that is, one where these violent crimes run rampant in the name of not having an official war, the entire country could fall and no one would win anything!
According to the die hard antiwar people, there are those who glorify war. This is only partly true. Most sane and self-respecting people in modern times don't glorify it in the same way that Homer did. I believe personally that this is due to sevral reasons. One is that even those of us who are Hellenic Polytheists are still not ancients. So we do not see the world as they did, just as the people in the world of the fictional Don Quixote didn't see war in the same way that the knights of his fantasies did. Another is that, since we and he are not from the times which interest us, we can't truly judge how they really did see things. So if, for example, Don Quixote really were to find a knight from medieval times, he might not match his expectations at all, and it's likely that even the best scholar would find it difficult to fit in immediately if he/she was thrown into ancient times. It's also important to note that the very nature of war has changed. It's no longer a matter of going out with your horse and sord and fighting for empire or to fend off enemy attacks on your home. The type of training and skill needed to be a warrior of old is no longer needed. Now, there are tanks and guns which could blow people to bits in a matter of seconds. There are computer-guided mistles and other technological advances which boggle my poor civilian mind and which could, in time, make physical combat a thing of the past. So all that would be required is a knowledge of what button does what. The reasons for fighting, as I've said, are different. It's perfectly natural for people to want to fight when defending themselves or a country with which they've had much contact. But to send people into fight a political war or to fight in a place which is completely alien, to save a people with whom they've had little or no contact is quite different. Yet even in the so-called good old days, before World War I, war was never pretty. While it's true that, during the American civil war, people would go to watch battles, when there were truly heated exchanges and when the dead were counted, I'm sure that no one really wanted to cheer. I don't need to be a soldier to know that. The glory comes not usually from killing but from victory, from knowing that you've survived another day, that you served your country and that you fought with honour, dignity and skill. If you're a general or other high-ranking officer, you might also be glad that your strategy worked and enjoy studying those of other heroes of wars in the past to help you improve on your own decisions. Most people who "love" war in the bloodthursty way portrayed by many passifists are either natural born killers or have been damaged by it and find it difficult to return to civilian life. Some people also wrongfully assume that when an ethnikofron says "I want another leader like Metaxas or Papadopoulos" that he/she means "let's go to war!" This is most likely not the case. What is meant here is that we need another strong leader to save the nation from corruption, not that we want a blood bath.
While I don't expect you to call your local military base and sign up for battle (unless you're a Greek man and haven't done so, in which case, you should), I do hope this has at least made you think. There are times for peace and times when the only answer really is war.