|of the titles of this article is ambiguous. For further meanings see war (term clarifying).|
to war is under employmentsubstantial means with force of arms delivered conflict under participation of states or according to plan proceeding, armed non-governmental collectives. The forms of the war are various and not necessarily to state systems bound: It can for example as civil war, war of independence or armed conflict also withinfrom states take place, the world war or the genocide become.
Table of contents
to work on
] term the word “war” „obstinacy “, „effort “, „controversy “. The verb „wars “is called on the one hand „war leads “, on the other hand „gotten, received “: This knows origin andA character of this collective use of force indicate. Also where other war causes are the center of attention, rarely an economic background is missing. In the language Sanskrit means war “desire for more cows”.
During individual or collective robbing and killing humans today generally as crimesand in a constitutional state is punishable, „war is considered “not as usual criminality is regarded, but as if armed argument between collectives, which see themselves legitimized in addition. Thus a war lifts the civilization force delimitation on an executive, like it the constitutional stateas rule presupposes, partially or completely up: Armed armies face each other, which represent whole peoples or groups of peoples. These are thereby a war party.
War parties always judge their own war participation as necessary and justified. Their organized collective force requires thus an authentication. War as state action requires therefore a martial law inside a state as well as an international law of war for the regulation of intergovernmental relations. This differentiates between above all attack of defensive war.
of wars can be arranged in different Grundtypen:
intergovernmental war usually takes place between two or several states . In addition the coalition war belongs: Several states are connected to a together acting war party. If a country is already occupied and its government entmachtet, the fight between states can as partisans - or guerrilla war between population and hostile state army to be continued: Nichtreguläre of armed forces fight militarily against the army of a crew power.
In a civil war against it different groups fight within a state, partly also over state borders away, often not nationally organized.Also this can be led with not-regular armed forces, “private armies” and/or mercenaries against the army of the own state government.
In a war of independence a people fights for its own state: z. B. as Dekolonisationskrieg against colonial power, as war of secession for the detachment oneSubsection of the state federation or as war around autonomy for a regional autonomy within a state. With these kinds it often concerns the consequence of a nationality conflict.
This typology is not clear, since material numerous mixing and transition forms occur.The today's „war against the terror “, that the USA after the notices of the 11. Septembers 2001 proclaimed, are in it a special case. It can be arranged neither as intergovernmental war nor as civil war, but is considered as asymmetrical conflict: A state State of (coalition war) fights against a grouping of terror appearing as a world-wide war party (partisan or guerrilla war, whereby the self-view - a war party - which external view - group criminality - contradicts). Both parties on strategic, tactical and operational level pursue unmistakably determinedGoals: political hegemony, ideological supremacy, economic advantages.
of wars are always organized within a federation on three levels with different power of decision:
- the strategic level: Here it is decided whether, why and to which a war is led. Strategic decisions are usually made by prominent politicians or the highest-ranking military personnels of a collective.
- the tactical level: Here one decides, how the war is led. ThisDecisions are usually made by persons, who acquired military guidance authority within the federation.
- the operational level: Here persons are to implement the decisions made within the superordinate levels. Most war participants act on this level.
The general operational sequencecan be divided for a war decision in four phases, which in the war like a cycle constantly repeats itself:
- Orientation: The martial federation looks in the area its (of potential) opponent collective or its opponents for possible attack targets.
- Observierung: The closer surrounding field onea selected war goal on defensive measures of the opponent federation one examines.
- Decision: The martial federation makes a decision due to the won information over it whether an attack takes place or not.
- Action: The martial federation specifies an attack after met decisionits opponent through.
The martial federation, which can accomplish this cycle - also OOEH pattern mentioned - unimpaired, is in the offensive. A federation, which is not to a complete OOEH Entscheidungskreislauf able, tries this with its opponentto interrupt by suitable defensive measures. It is thus in the defensive.
with the war are to be differentiated the vordergründigen war causes from the deeper war causes to. Most wars can be attributed to some main causes.In addition belong above all:
- economic advantages, lack of resources
- political and/or ideological hegemony props (e.g. Dschihad, “democratization” of the Near East)
- threatening loss of influence in occupied and/or. annektierten areas
- Wehrhaftigkeit lacking opposite possible aggressors, that invite these to the war (passive drawback ofactive designates hegemony props) also as “power vacuum”.
- ethnical conflicts
- of religious Fanatismus, Dogmatismus or on war which are based rituals in different Religionskriegen (e.g. Dschihad in the Islam, crusades in the Christianity, „flower wars “ of the Aztecs)
- diverson of bad states relating to domestic affairs,around population and government to weld together
- structural militarism, thus the dependence of an economic system on the war leading for paragraph of military products.
War is to be explained however rarely monocausally: Many of the economic, political, ideological, religious and cultural reason for war specified here play in thatReality together, cause themselves mutually and turn into into one another. Therefore the war term cannot be restricted also on military aggression actions. These nearly always go through a preparatory phase: War usually begins in the “peace”. Real peace is thus more than thoseAbsence of war.
antique one and the European Middle Ages
robbery wars accompany human culture history since more jeher. For before-national master companies an armed raid was often means of survivingand power acquisition at the same time. The early period of these master feuds corresponded in approximately what today as armed conflict is considered: Smaller local groups fought each other in often spontaneous, unplanned form and with constantly changing alliances.
Only with the arising of state-similar things,in the antiquity the monarchies were developed special nearly always, for fighting turned off armies. The ruling powers availed themselves of the armies in conflicts, which were understood about them as personal duel.
The dominant Oberschichten of the time saw the war as normal conditionon. The peace required of special contract conclusions following on it. In the Greece 4. pre-Christian century were there due to the development after the Peloponnesi war, which the Polis - order of Greece had destabilized, on the other hand several attempts, by the idea of the general peaceto justify a durable peace order.
Antique large realms developed often from organized raids. They placed the conquered areas under tribute obligation, enslaved or deportierten parts of the population. They converted military victories into a durable rule. Also the Roman realm occupied thoseconquered areas and used them economically. The Pax Romana of the Roman Kaiser era was based on constant military operational readiness level.
Wars and civil wars represented also later further a normal condition. The war guidance went through different phases. The weapon technology developed there tofastest further, where rulers means and intentions had to the war.
modern times until 1914
as a result of the reformation disintegrated the relatively stable unit of the Middle Ages, the holy Roman realm under guidance of emperor and Pope.The connection of konfessionellen and power-politics contrasts finally led to the dreissigjährigen war from 1618 to 1648. Announced field battles often accompanied with raids, plunderings and massacres at the civilian population. In the process for instance a third of the Central European population died,if it is by direct war effects, it is by war sequences such as harvest failures and brought in epidemics.
These events caused a convicition change. The Westfäli peace for the first time the principle of the noninterference brought 1648 into the affairs of strange states into the discussion.The war cancelled the requirement to intersperse religious points of view with force of arms. The Westfäli peace introduced the separation from politics and religion in Europe.
The comparatively peaceful period following on it favoured the clearing-up. From the idea of the general human rights developeditself the idea of the preserved war within the civilian framework. Since Augustinus of Hippo if the church science of the fair war had supplied the criteria for authentication, then took over this lawyers cleared up now such as Hugo Grotius. Ruling powers followed the criteria forwardseverything for pragmatic and financial reasons. Peace as a goal of the policy by sections also one reached conceivablly and: approximately in the epoch after the Viennese congress 1815.
The modern form of the war presupposed national states , over a tax revenue and Military budget to order and thus a standing army to set up know. The development led to ever larger armies with ever stronger weapons and according to higher victim numbers.
In 19. Also first beginnings are century for the delimitation and adjustment of armed conflicts, thoseas modern international law were established. From it also the codified martial law and the international law of war were derived (see here). Its most important achievements before 1914 were:
- those Geneva convention of 1864, which planned above all the human supply of war victims;
- those Hague Land Warfare Convention of 1907, those for the first time strictly between civilians and Kombattanten separated and into article 22 the revolutionary sentence fixed (): „The states are not unlimited right in the choice of the means for the damage of the enemy. “
ThoseReason for war remained excluded with this coding of the war process, and the choice of the means was not obligatorily regulated likewise yet.
the age of the world wars
submarines , poisonous gas as well as the total wartime economy led years (see also air battle around England) to a new face of the war.Field and sea-battles demanded millions victims and hundreds of millions of severely woundeds person.
The past European alliance, equilibrium and contract politics with its double strategy from high armament and diplomacy had failed not least because of the competition around colonies. Therefore became particularly on initiative of the US president Woodrow Wilson after 1918 tries to institutionalize an international conflict regulation. The establishment of the Völkerbunds put the peace out as a common goal of the states and gave to international law an organizational basis.
The Briand Kellogg pact for the proscription of the war of aggression was a further step,in order to limit not only the war process, but the state sovereignty with the decision to the war and internationally criteria accepted the defensive war to subject.
In view of the new war quality, which means of mass destruction meant, furthermore one tried, determined as unnecessarily cruelly understood weaponsto outlaw and forbid. This did not succeed until 1939 however yet, although the legal in principle handled for it with that Hague Land Warfare Convention was given.
The ascent of the national socialism terminated these efforts. Systematically Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1939 those ignoredinternational-law obligations of Germany and prepared its war of extermination and conquest. The Appeasement politics of Great Britain failed 1938 with the German occupation of Tschechien. The way in the 2. World war was free thereby.
This began like first as conventional war, becamebut rapidly and inexorably to the total war. Nationally guided wartime economy, martial law, compulsory military service and propaganda battles at the homeland front absolutely referred the peoples into the fighting. The mobilization of all national reserves for war purposes main header the distinction betweentook part civilians and Kombattanten up. The war guidance ignored international law.
Thus it came in the war process
- to the bombardment against closely settled areas, for the first time by German bombers 1937 in the Spanish civil war on Guernica and 1940 on London and Coventry, then alsoby the English-American Flächenbombardements of Dresden and other German cities,
- for the connection of territorial conquest and Massenvernichtung in the German Russia campaign, whereby German armed forces and SS cooperated,
- massive perishing of prisoners of war, to which equally organizational excessive demand, indifference and criminal energy, to
- the strategy „burned earth “, which the Germans only in the guerilla warfare in Eastern Europe, then in the retreat also in the own country used, and
- finally to the US-American atom bomb releases on Hiroshima to if 6 contributed. August and Nagasaki to 9. August 1945.
The Nürnberger of processes created the new criminal offence existence „crimes against the humanity “: this was the first attempt to judge at all humans by international law because of their war crimes.
UN and cold war (1945-1990)
the tremendous increasestrengthened the destruction capacities and Verselbstständigung of warfare after 1945 the efforts to generally avoid wars. In Europe, particularly in Germany the attitude prevailed forwards with far parts of the civilian population: Never again war!
Again now above all the USA worked upthe mechanism of a world-wide organization to diplomatic conflict resolution and war preventing: the UN. The experience of the faint of international law in the world wars found its precipitation in their Charter, here particularly in chapter II, paragraph 4:
- All members omitin ihren internationalen Beziehungen jede gegen die territoriale Unversehrtheit oder die politische Unabhängigkeit eines Staates gerichtete oder sonst mit den Zielen der Vereinten Nationen unvereinbare Androhung oder Anwendung von Gewalt.
This forbade for the first time generally binding each war of aggression and each military extortion.The Charter affirms the principle of the noninterference and the natural right for self-defense in the case of a hostile attack. It obligates all members to common peace-receiving or restoring measures and made these on a mandate of the UN security council dependent. Stood alsothe concern before a new global conflict godfather, which already emerged by the decay of the anti-Hitler coalition to the conference of potsdam in July 1945 on the horizon.
Also the efforts for the proscription of certain branches of service were strengthened since 1945. But during thatProhibition was accepted far away by B and C-weapons, failed the universal prohibition of the nuclear weapons. To 1949 the USA possessed the atomic monopoly; until 1954 the Soviet Union a strategic „Atompatt reached “, which was based particularly on holding ready of hydrogen bombs and remote guided weapons.Both world-political contractors were capable from now on of the atomic secondary impact with uncalculable consequences in the enemy's country.
Since the almost collision of the superpowers in the Cuba crisis of 1962 supplementing however first steps were made common arms control. The KSZE was furnished 1973and permitted certain independent disarmament initiatives with the Soviet Union to the Europeans. In addition came the peace movement growing since 1979, which increased the pressure relating to domestic affairs to disarmament agreements particularly in Western Europe and the USA. With Gorbachev's offers succeeded 1986 in ReykjavíkBreak-through for the complete retreat of all medium-range missiles from Europe, which drew a number of subsequent contracts.
Underneath the nuclear war threshold however constantly so-called conventional wars found particularly in countries of the third world in such a way specified between 1945 and 1990instead of. A set of it were deputy wars, e.g. the Korea war (1950 to 1953), the Viet Nam war (1964-1975) as well as numerous conflicts in Africa and Latin America. There the block contrast of the cold war and mutual marking out of zones of influence that preventedSuperpowers frequently regional conflict resolutions and favoured extended civil wars also from the foreign country financed guerillas.
since 1990 with
the collapse of the Soviet Union 1990 the cold war ended to tendencies. The dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia led at the beginning of the 90'sYears to a strong rise of the number of the wars. Since 1992 however almost halved itself the number of the current wars (per year) . It came back however also to new wars, now also in the west increasingly aslegitimate means for reaching political goals like the penetration of human rights or as prevention against actual or assumed arms plans and attack intentions of the opponent to be regarded.
The UN did not notice its war-avoiding role, but legitimized some military interferences, thosebefore as illegal wars of aggression applied. By this work of new facts the interpretation of valid international law changed: The principle of the noninterference into the affairs of strange states is given up ever more frequently.
- At least in the western world - those becomes obviousConception of war as fight „state against state “or „people against people “gradually replaced of the idea that wars are approximately a kind police action of the world community from the rules out-shearing members or should be. Exists however overthe interpretation of the violation of rules, which can justify a war, so far in the UN no agreement. So far to the statement of legitimate self-defense valid procedures in the UN security council last 2003 of the only remaining superpower, which the USA occurred and ignored, became there. Thusthe general validity of international law was questioned again.
The inadequacy of the past international-law criteria, decision and control mechanisms is increasingly recognized: for instance in relation to ethnical genocides without obvious national steering element, newer asymmetrical conflicts; itself solvent or state States of connecting with private armies, thatStrategy „the preemptive strikes “(preventing disarmament) and the international arms traffic. Thus the UN carried so far neither the examination of the actual reason for war nor control out of the weapon technology still the observance of agreements for proscription and Nichtverbreitung of ABC weapons effectively.
Furthermorewith the newer authentication by wars of aggression a new arms race was introduced. On the part of the USA and other states such as North Korea or the People's Republic China also the initial application is taken into account and prepared by nuclear weapons. In Russia is likewise a new turnto register for also atomic high armament. The threshold to the nuclear war was lowered clearly with so-called „mini of nukes “.
war and politics
the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany determine in the article 26 (1): „Actions, are suitable and in thatIntention to be made of disturbing the peaceful living together of the peoples of preparing in particular the guidance of a war of aggression it is unconstitutional. They are to be placed under punishment. “
Since the modern times war is linked closely with the policy of sovereign national states, relating to domestic affairs over Force monopoly order. The Prussian military theoretician Clausewitz saw war as „act of the force, around the opponent to the fulfilment of our will to force “. Because this force proceeds from sovereigns a commonwealth, it defined it as „continuation of the policy with other means “: „We in such a way see thus that the war is not only a political act, but a true political instrument, a continuation of political traffic, accomplishing the same with other means. Which the war now remains still peculiar, refers onlyon the peculiar nature of its means. “
One calls a political orientation, which considers war progress-promoting natural, unavoidably, even and efforts on armaments affirmed in principle, militarism. The Greek philosopher Heraklit expresses this attitude with the winged word: „War is thatFather of all things. “
The opposite attitude does not only want to avoid wars, but abolish as means of the conflict delivering to exclude on a long-term basis, and to make redundant: The Pazifismus (of Latin pacem facere: „Peace create “). For it war is „a scourge of mankind “ (UN Charter).
Between this Poland move „the material politics in such a way specified “of the majority of all states, which military force excludes completely as ultima ratio - „last means “- never and uses for each individual case as inevitable. Is in today'swestern societies forwards, in and after a war usually violently disputed whether and when this means was actually the latter, the war thus really unavoidable and is.
for this are produced every now and then war-releasing single acts (the First World War, The Second World War) or economic conflicts provokes (tariff, patent law, import restrictions). However an existing conflict can to be caught fire also from everyday things as a soccer game.
There both assassination attempts and acts of terrorism the moral justification for oneWar to form know, comes to the production of a war often higher meaning than later execution. This results from the fact that war guidance apart from logistic and humanitarian criteria saves above all economic obligations.
special one government-political motives
In poorer countries war serves calculation often relating to domestic affairs. The government of such a country counts on the fact that the people is so busy by the hardness climate produced by the war with direct vital functions such as food , clothes, dwelling that itno more time has, itself topics such as government to dedicate politics or economics. A government can try in such a way to suppress criticism.
Prosperity nations lead wars usually off the own homeland. A drastic restricting of the base of life is in these, rather more highly formedPopulations usually obtainable and one did not accept not broadly. Nevertheless in the homeland one is transferred „psychological militarization “to the entire people, who Patriotismus and tolerance of cutting of fundamental rights, for example in the way of the counterterrorism, to aim at.
In both casesit acts around a kind escape, in connection with forward already independently of the war existing structure problems in the own country and/or threatening power loss of the government. The war can as justification for different restrictions (for example the human rights or thatSocial supply) to be used.
Since a population is mostly in relative acceptance with her government (supported by nationally directed media or places by genuine acceptance of aggressive expansion intentions and/or by tacit enduring of the government), the reciprocal effect between the people opinion on the one handand the authentication of a government war to lead on the other hand, a particularly important instrument of the militarization in the apron of the war guidance .
, rebellions, the coup d'etat, civil wars etc. count state of emergency to these small wars. They form the overwhelming majorityall wars; „the regular “wars between states and regular troops in contrast to this the exception. Some authors (Agamben, Hardt and Negri) analyze this opinion meanwhile, then state of emergency as the normal condition too one explain:
- Actions, which one in former times in a war, now as „police measures so mentioned “accomplished
- the fight of the terrorism accomplished stands in one tension-hold back-eats to democracy, approximately by cutting of civil liberties.
The policy sees no longer than last means to war, but than tool as a check andDisciplining.
Military strategies change with the weapon development. In history frequently dominant factor powers were back-thrown,because newer, more effective weapons were developed. In addition, without new development of weapons better strategic planning can decide a war, and. And. also from the inferiority.
In the military strategy around, through skillful spatial and temporal arrangement that always is To cause engagements situations success. As coronation/culmination it is generally considered, if one carries the victory off without a fight. War lists are therefore a substantial element of the war. Probably most famous war cunning of history is those of the Trojan horse.
Military strategy leaves itselfstretch after Edward Luttwak in two dimensions. Horizontals and a Vertikaklen. The horizontal level corresponds to the temporary succession of each strategic operation inclusive of Clausewitz culmination point. The vertical dimension is divided into several levels. The lowest is the technical level, thiscovers the effectiveness, and the costs of weapon systems, and concomitantly the state of training and efficiency of the individual soldiers. Next the tactical level follows. It covers the lower military guidance thus everything to asking all ion or brigade level, as well as the moralthe troop and contain above all the utilization of area. Next the operational level follows. In this is the military strategy of division level and upward. Here larger military maneuvers under other criteria are planned as in the tactical level andimplemented. Here decides less the area than for example to verfügungstehenden resources inclusive the inclusion the economic capacity. As the highest level the battlefield strategy is considered. In it the political goals and peculiarities of the war-prominent parties only and alone decide. On a theaterthe strategy is converted in the framework by campaigns by operations. For operations instructions and operation plans are provided, which the superordinate strategic goals in practical, military orders and acting to convert.
each war is, apart from the loss of infrastructure or jobs, always also with death and terribleWrong connected. These develop on the one hand as inevitable Nebenfolgen of the weapon delivery against humans, on the other hand for strategic reasons (for example when blowing up bridges or by poisoning of basic food), partially become the destruction of buildings, for the whole infrastructure of theWar opponent in addition, consciously caused, in order to demonstrate the destruction strength of an army and intimidate the opponent (for example „shock and awe “- strategy in the Iraq war).
In many wars (and become) war crimes were committed (for example tortures, encroachments on the civilian population, etc.). Thatlarge power downward gradients in theaters of war and the large liberty before prosecution can in connection with general-gene-wait death natural restraining thresholds to diminish.
many wars were of crucial historical importance. By the Roman wars „the civilization became “inEurope spreads and by wars in the context of the people migration the end of the Roman realm caused. The effects of it were so strongly that 1000 years chaos followed, which from today's viewpoint as the Middle Ages are designated. By the revolution wars that became democratic thought in Europe spreads, by the farmer wars that protest anti-mash. Thus rising fascism became in 2. World war terminates or at least so strongly back-pushed that fascists take now an edge position.
Apart from the political effects a war has alwaysa multiplicity at negative consequences. Thus it dezimiert the population of a country extremely, by the 2. World war whole classes were almost rubbed out. The economic consequences are just as drastic.
there as one of the rational war causes the fightin order, wars apply for resources the more improbably, per favorable resources of a region for another region will become available, without having to be conquered in a military conflict under mortal danger. Thus wars are economical all the more uninteresting, the better the existingResources in the way by agreements to be used.
Alternative ones to the military resistance („war “), if one are attacked, are the concepts „of the civilian resistance “.
devaluation of the war after lost wars to generally condemn war. Thus came into Germany to 1945 formulas like „never again war “on (is that admitsPoster of Käthe Kollwitz with this title). After victories however the war becomes gentleman light. Like that the world is full from victory thinking marks, Triumphbögen and other memories of large military successes.
The human longing after a peace, that „the scourge thatMankind “overcomes, is age-old. Political peace work can rely therefore on broad and heterogeneous traditions.
- In the Chinese cosmology of the Taoteking and the philosophy of the wise state State of Laotse war avoidance played an important role by harmonious reconciliation of interests.
- In India, China and Japan spread Jainismus and Buddhismus an ethics of the non-violence, tolerance and love of peace , since 500 the v. Chr. the shape of a world religion won.
- In antique Greek philosophy the antique one placed Sokrates and the Skeptiker the matter of course inQuestion, with the truth possession to be stressed and allegedly eternal rights against others be defended. The Stoiker Zenon and Chrysippos turned against the war leading and employed considerations whether wars were necessary or could like one them avoid.
- In all European The force reduction played state utopias from Platon to Thomas Morus by ideal legislation and people formation a role.
- The God picture of the Judentums made the far away usual employment more difficult of the own religion for the justification of the own wars. In the visions of the Heilsprophetie appearsGod as a coming world judge, who instructs the peoples to final disarmament:It will their swords plowshares and their mirror-image-eat Sicheln to make. It will not raise people against the other one the sword, and they will not no more learn away,To lead war. Everyone under its Weinstock and fig tree will live, and nobody will frighten it. Because the mouth of the Mr. Zebaoth (the army crowds) talked it. (Book Micha 4.2-4).
- This instruction for universal disarmament has Jesus Christby the prophetische indication of the force renouncement (Markus 11, 7/Sacharja 9.9) and the self devotion for reconciliation (Markus 14, 22-24) in the new will affirms. Therefore is the active employment for world-wide peace (Lukas 2, 14) for Christiansas for Jew an integral component of its faith (Roman letter 12, 18).
- The classical, conservative and fundamentalist Islam plans peace after the conquest of the entire aluminium-Harb (area of the Nichtmuslime). Afterwards the entire earth is under the Scharia ina Pax islamica live. World conquest happens by means of martial Dschihad. Afterwards then the ideal picture one is „Paradieses under the sword Islam “to prevail.
- In the modern times the force renouncement in the west was decoupled by the religions. Immanuel Kant, Jean Jacques Rousseau and other reconnaissance aircraft aimed at „the eternal peace “and sketched right-national and democratic concepts, in order to cause it. Ludwig van Beethoven has this dream at the end of the 9. Symphony with its Vertonung of Schillers poem desert to the joy(„all humans become brothers “) a musical monument set.
- In the age of the European national wars international law won, after the devastating experiences of the 1. World war the thought of a Völkerbunds on the war prevention acceptance. The Briand Kellogg pact was considered to the proscription of the war as oneBy means of the policy. The UN forbade the war of aggression, which world peace for the goal of all politics raised and for the first time ansatzweise effective forms for conflict avoidance and conflict resolution possible makes.
These tendencies were strengthened by the tremendous increase of the destruction possibilities in the war necessarily and.The UN could not waive war causes like economic and political clashes of interests however and not prevent many wars. Also the spreading of weapon of mass destruction could not be stopped until today effectively. The disarmament process introduced at the end of the cold war came since that„new wars “for succumbing and by new armament tendencies one replaced. International terrorism and anti-terror war let those grow ready for violence shank world-wide still further.
An alternative to the peace does not give it in the age of means of mass destruction any longer. At the latest since invention of the atom bomb is it„the survival condition of the technical age “become (Heidelberger theses of the EKD 1959).
revaluation of the war
is often heroisiert the war. Kant for example writes: Even the war, if it with order and holy attention of the civil rights ledbecomes, something raised has actually and makes the kind of thinking of the people, who it in this kind leads, only around the raised, per several dangers it at the same time was suspended and courageously under it state could themselves: there however longerPeace the bare commercial spirit to make and the kind of thinking of the people to degrade with it however the low self-interest, cowardice and Weichlichkeit dominant maintains. (Criticism of the judgement, § 28. Of nature as a power.)
as Kriegsfetischismus one designates oneexaggerated enthusiasm for the war. The war is mostly idealized thereby. Kriegsfetischismus was for example in the 1. World war as also later in the national socialism. The war was stylized there as honorable, male and admirablly.
The instrumentalization of religious ideals for political interestsfound a high point with the crusades of the Middle Ages, which release the holy places „“and Christian states wanted to establish. The crusade ideology of the eternal fight „of the good one “against „the bad “plays this very day an important role.
classification, controland martial law
was tried again and again in history to subject the war guidance certain rules or moral defaults to thus find to a kind of behavior kodex. The aggression breaking in the war course submits „to higher values “- and in the long runso that in eyes of many critics also relates.
With respect to the European literature frequently in such a way between „the arranged “and the not arranged war one differentiates. On the other side those, economic in principle the prosperity than best, with the same basic consideration, standWar prevention regard. Here one is inclined to represent the Perversionen of the ungehegten war as normal condition of the war. From it considerations follow, like war to be avoided can and attempts to achieve an eternal peace. The war is regarded in such a way as the absolute bad,as the work of morally verkommenen ruling powers, who fall their country from low motives into a war.
There are also opinions that the character of the war changed and therefore today „a preserved war is no longer possible “. Thatthe forms of the war change, are however an statement, which is as old as the history of mankind. New war forms were respected at all times as order adverse, frequently as offences against a göttliche order. Today become in that abendländischen culture determined war forms as permissible represented (for instance bomb releases on cities, which are to meet military, in addition, civilians endanger), while other war forms (for instance suicide assassination attempts, which do not meet military mechanisms to be interpreted) than inadmissible, during in the Islamic world oftenthe contrary opinion to find is.
War is not only a means of nationally organized and guided policy. Beside the states, which had an army as war-prominent side, those obviously played, not regulären' groups in the war a substantial at all timesRole:Kosaken, hunter, Hussar, Ronin, partisans, in that more recent time the Guerilla, partisan, militias and Taliban. Which is not regular, politically one discusses. With still more exact Hinsehen however one notices that thoseTheory of the irregular fighter (partisans) an advancement of the Clausewitz theory is, how they made the Claus joke connoisseurs Lenin and Carl Schmitt.
Thus also the attempt fails to differentiate between a conflict and a formally explained war and the designation „to war “to limit to those conflicts, which accompany with a formal declaration of war.
modern international law tried, intergovernmental wars of other forms of conflict delivering, attack and defensive war by force to differentiate civilians and military personnel and thus legitimate from illegitimen war actions to.
Thatintergovernmental war is to begin in accordance with its rules with a declaration of war. This was already intended since the antique one in the Mediterranean area. She is however often ignored since the modern times very and replaced by the attack.
Gegenbegriff to „the war “is „the peace “. This sets according to international law again one howeverconstituted peace conclusion between former war opponents ahead. If a war party in the war is destroyed however to a large extent or completely, so that it cannot be any more contracting party, international law speaks of Debellation (Latin: „Defeating “).
Historically more frequently however intermediate conditions are like some durableOccupation without valid peace treaty or a condition, with which the opponents constantly prepare for an open war, whose process flat learn and. Prime example for it is the cold war.
The organized use of weapons always means the massive killingof humans. Already the constant armament to the war requires expenditures and devours means, which are missing for other tasks. Even if a war-prominent party victim does not aim at, they are always taken as unavoidable in purchase. Who regards this effect, this callsForm of the conflict delivering by force therefore usually „nationally organized mass murder “(Bertha of Suttner, Karl Barth). Thereinto it comes to the expression that the phenomenon of the war is to be regarded hardly worth-neutrally, because it thereby always also around the lifemany and the long-term perspectives of all humans goes.
The connection of state and war as well as the difficulties with the distinction of war, robbery and murder the absence at the same time indicates to a generally accepted right instance. The UN-Charter and the international criminal courtcan be regarded as steps for the obligatory penetration of international law. Whether they contribute rather to the justification or reduction of new wars, is not decided yet.
by a war many humans suffer physical and mental Traumatisierungen. Thosemental Traumatisierungen can coin/shape the character of humans for the remaining life from apathetic to aggressive. If they remain unmachined, because they cannot be seized into words and shown then, they are transferred nevertheless unexpressed (by Introjektion) to the descendants.To in such a way coined/shaped descendant knowledge is however often missing, whereby wrong develops. This unconsciously instilled coinage is then realized in most diverse areas of life. (In such a way „the bad is as it were mystifiziert “, and/or. .) the mass at population of this coinage is shifted on a neurotable-metaphysical levellargely enough and also within the political range actively, develop for efforts of conflicts with war to clarify. Thus new wars develop again and again. Because of bad consequences, which the war draws, it happens that many humans so strongly at body andSoul to be hurt that they can it hardly process which everything happened. Therefore problems develop over it to speeches and the children and grandchildren of it to telling, what for bitter consequences a war has. This knowledge becomes thus many humans thatfollowing generation not communicated, due to (post office trauma tables) the mental injuries. There is then the possibility the fact that a fatal cycle begins and the misfortune takes its run: Of the war develop consciousness conditions, from apathetic to aggressive, traumatisierten which however remains somehow unexplainable.The behavior is passed unconsciously by Introjektion to the children. If too little positive influences are in the educating surrounding field, the gates open to ready for violence shank. If then the mass at population with unsatisfactory people love and projecting ability takes over hand, also the gates opento the war.
- Capa, Robert: Slightly Out OF focus. New York: The decaying LIBRARY 1999.
- Clausewitz, Carl of: Of the war.Ullstein, Frankfurt/Main 2003, ISBN 3-548-36413-6, German on-line version
- Clouse, Robert: The Christian and the war: Four points of view. Nuremberg: VTR 2003, ISBN 3-933372-82-8.
- Creveld, Martin L. van: The future of the war.Gerling academy publishing house, Munich1998, ISBN 3-932425-04-9
- Creveld, Martin L. van: Women and war. Gerling academy publishing house, Munich 2001, ISBN 3-932425-33-2
- Einstein, Albert; Freud, victory mouth : Why war? Diogenes, Zurich 1996, ISBN 3-257-70044-X
- Evans, Harold: Was Stories: Reporting in the Time OF Conflict. Arlington: The Freedom forum Newseum 2001.
- Friedrich, Ernst: “War the war”, 1924
- hero, Karl; Ebel, Theo: Deviating opinions for” Nachrüstung “. The west wants the war. Eight proofs and a conclusion. Munich, 1983, ISBN 3922935168 free on-line version
- knee by, Thomas;Mueller, Marion G. (Hrsg.):Was vision: Image communication and war. Cologne: Harsh ore of Halem, 2005
- bad, Maria: War without borders. New colonizing of the world. (with a contribution of Claudia of Werlhof) 2004, ISBN 3894382864 discussion
- Münkler, Herfried: The new wars. Rowohlt, Reinbek 2004, ISBN 3-499-61653-X
- Münkler, Herfried: Over the war. Stations of war history in the mirror of their theoretical reflection. Velbrück Wiss., Weilerswist 2003, ISBN 3-934730-54-X
- Paul, Gerhard: Pictures of the war - war of the pictures: Visualization of themodern war. Munich, Paderborn: Ferdinand Schönigh publishing house/William finch publishing house 2004
- Paul, Gerhard: The picture war: Productions, pictures and perspectives of the operation Iraqi liberty. Goettingen: Barrier stone 2005
- Perlmutter, David D.: Vision OF was: Picturing of throwing acres from the StoneAge ton the Cyber Age. New York: Pc. Martin' s press 1999
- Seesslen, George; Metz, Markus: War of the pictures - pictures of the war: Paper over the disaster and the mediale reality. Berlin: Publishing house Klaus bitter man 2002
- Sontag, Susan: Regarding the Pain OF Others. New York: Far RSR, Straus and Giroux 2003
- stone-cutter, Rudolf: Sociology of the war. Barth, Leipzig 1929
- Sun Tsu: The art of the war. Droemer Knaur, Munich 2001, ISBN 3-426-66645-6
- Taylor, John: Body horror:Photojournalism, Catastrophe and was. New York: New York University press 1998
- Tolstoj, Lew Nikolajewitsch : The kingdom of God is in you English on-line version
- Virilio, Paul: War and television. Frankfurt/M.: Fischer 1997
Web on the left of
|Commons: War- Pictures, videos and/or audio files|
|Wiktionary: War - word origin, synonyms and translations|
|Wikiquote: War - quotations|
- working group war cause research (AKUF) (and armed wars conflicts since 1945)
- Heidelberger Institut for international conflict research
- list of the wars of the last 4 centuries
- Carl von Clausewitz,Of the war
- entry (English) in the Stanford Encyclopedia OF Philosophy (inclusive Literature data)
- The Aerial Reconnaissance of archives (aerial photographs)
- peace fragen.de: Information and background to war and peace
- Robert Birnbaum, the battle around the knowledge - in potsdam the war of the future is rehearsed (“Daily mirrors “, 11. March 2006; see. , , , , )