In this regard - I think war to most people seems like a more "reasonable option" when it comes to dealing with problems . . . rather than people 'loving' war.
Favoring war when a conflict arises is not a pure US only thing - it's actually a widespread thought process which has been fostered and furthered by numerous civilizatons throughout history. We're just one of the many.
In truth - the notion of dealing with differences and conflicts - especially when some involved in the problem also favor war or violence as a means of dealing with those they consider an adversary (terrorists come to mind) - with non-war tactics is actually very modern. Throughout history it was just sad fact that if you didn't wage war on your enemy as well as they waged war on you your civilization would likely fall victim and be conquered.
In the past the notion of 'talking about it, passing sanctions' was ridiculous - absolutely laughable *unless* there was a peace-treaty or some type of agreement in which land and other things were traded or given in lieu of actual warfare.
Think about it - The Art of Waging War and Conquering Your Enemies Through Force is a much practiced and very expertly contrived thing - it's been around for so long we know how to do it - and do it well (everyone does).
But The Art of Dealing With Your Tyranical Enemies With Non-combat Solutions is new, its' not as well researched and practiced and surely is not well known and honed to an artform and executed with grace.
:shrug:
So - rather than 'love' we can say war is a 'comfort zone' (however bizarre and odd that sounds) simply because it's tried and true.
That's true. But I think a more skeptic view of war, primarily in Europe, came into existence for a very good reason:
Never before the 20th century, war was that devastating and painful for the civil population as it is today. Today, states waging war have all kinds of highly effective WMD at their disposal that can kill hundreds or thousands of people by just pushing one button. Nerve gas was first used in WW1, and nuclear weapons not before the end of WW2.
Back in the Civil War, or in the French-German war of 1870/71, it was still easy to maintain the notion war is honorable, and its bad sides were not as big, as obvious enough to make people consider war generally undesirable, or to keep leaders from considering them a legitimate "continuation of politics by other means":
Brave men in uniform were shooting on other brave men in uniform, in what was usually considered a fair, honorable fight, and their code of honor (and the war law they usually agreed on) kept them from raping or murdering the civil population. Sometimes, that may have happened nevertheless, and sometimes, soldiers plundered and pillaged, but this kind of hardship for the civil population was rather an exception to the rule than inevitable consequence of modern war with WMD. In modern war, civil loss is inevitably higher, because of the nature of many weapon systems in use.
Maybe the difference on both sides of the Atlantic is that Europeans have experienced such a modern war with WMD -- bombs explicitly targeting living quarters or at least the use of weapons and tactics that inevitably caused huge "collateral damage" --, while the most recent American memory of war on the own soil dates back to the more honorable times of the Civil War.
Completely getting off subject (well, maybe not) I couldn't help but think about the Iliad (even though it's epic fiction). In the days of Ancient Greeks a mighty warrior was measured by his spoils of war - what he plundered and was given after their great defeat. Warriors at that time were honored and revered.
This war-proud culture is where a lot of our modern-cultures are rooted. Even today philosophers from that time like Aristophanes and Aristotle are a *very* heavy influence in our culture and government. They were the Ancient Greeks who revered the mighty warrior . . . and their views and opinions heavily govern what people think and feel even today about these things.
As they've done throughout history.
The Renaissance was the rebirth of Europe - post the Middle Ages or, as they called it, the Dark Ages. The Dark Ages was a period of complicated havoc and just tiresome disorganization in Europe (which is why they named it the Dark Ages) and once they stepped into the Renaissance era they brought back to life and re-birthed the Greek Classics - their thoughts, philosophies and especially their views of warfare and civilization conquering and expansion centered around and cuddled right up to the Ancient ways.
I think the preoccupation with warfare and so on is a passion of the Past - unable to leave the past in the past and enter into a new future with different priorities.
That's a very interesting thought. And yes, now as I think of it, I believe you are right. War was considered most honorable in Europe in the 18th and especially 19th century, the age when ancient concepts came back to European consciousness, and when peoples were fighting for the idea of the national state, and part of their code of honor, which made warfare a very honorable endeavour, was the respect for war law.
Maybe the last war in Europe that was embraced by majorities of people, maybe even eagerly anticipated, was WW1. At least in Germany, people embraced war when it was started. This fondness for war soon faded, when the death tall increasingly grew and no progress was made in France, when the first nerve gas and airplanes were used.
Believe it or not, but even WW2 already was rather unpopular in Germany. Hitler had to emphasize time and again that he wants peace and peace only, not just because he wanted to lull the allies, but also because that's what was popular in Germany. Hitler even had to stage a full-scale sharade by faking a Polish attack on Germany, and he wouldn't have had to do that, if the people had been just too willing to easily start a new war of aggression. Then, of course, the initial many quick victories fostered public support for the war.
Not that I think Germans in WW2 were pacifists, or rejected war as strongly as they do today. But I think it's obvious Hitler already needed to put more effort into convincing the people than Kaiser Wilhelm II had to.
which is why you can't be held responsble for having no access to it. and the fact that nothing has leaked is just proof of how very, very good 'they' are.
