| [ Prev | Next ] |
Theory 6
25/2/97
OBJECTIVES OF WAR
Take occupied France as an example. Hitler owned France in the sense of he held the land, but hostilities will never change the view of the people, indeed, it just makes them more resistant. No matter how Hitler oppressed the French people, they could always agree when facing the Nazi's and then turn against them when under cover - they would never have been under Nazi control.
If Hitler's aims were to take the land people lived on, then he might have succeeded. But if his aim was to rule the world, then he certainly would not, simply because people are not there to be ruled. And what good is land if you have no people to 'work' it.
The only way to change someones mind is to reason with them, make them see your point of view. In doing this you may even find your own outlook is flawed, but the worst that could happen is that you agree to disagree.
So war is a valid way of taking land - or is it?
Another point about war is that people could die for nothing in the outshot.
Take the Russian revolution, for example. Many died over communisum in the early 20th century, and yet, in the end, it was all for nothing as the USSR collapsed in 1989. You could argue that it was not in vain, there were almost 80 years of communisum in the Soviet Union. But this really only cut them off from the rest of the world, who were advancing more quickly.
Anyway, the point is, war wrecks lives and in the long term achieves nothing.
|
|
Get your own free home page