26

In the past few centuries an unwritten rule has been followed where countries make up some sort of plausible-sounding excuse before starting a war. As an example, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia in 1939 because he "wanted to protect the Sudeten Germans". Likewise World War I officially began because of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

But when did this practice first begin? When did it become necessary to somehow rationalize the use of force?

JonathanReez
  • 4,291
  • 32
  • 50
  • Related: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20088/why-do-countries-always-make-up-a-noble-sounding-excuse-before-invading-another/20110#20110 – JonathanReez Jun 19 '17 at 17:41
  • 5
    Slightly opinion related... "making up excuses" - is it your assertion that the use of force requires no justification? You'd be out in a lonely corner of humanity if that is true...Pretty much every society in existence requires justification before it starts spending the lives of its citizens. – MCW Jun 19 '17 at 17:44
  • 20
    The Romans certainly did it; I suspect it goes back as far as recorded history. – antlersoft Jun 19 '17 at 18:02
  • 9
    Even before notions of "international community" didn't exist, countries still need to justify for their own citizens...even in autocracies, a "just war" improves moral. I believe Sun Tze talks about this in the Art of War, and that's a work from the 5th century BC. – Gort the Robot Jun 19 '17 at 18:26
  • @MarkC.Wallace You can always say that you simply want to grab the neighbor's territory – JonathanReez Jun 19 '17 at 19:42
  • "... And furthermore, I believe Carthage should be destroyed." Cato. – Pieter Geerkens Jun 19 '17 at 21:45
  • 27
    I assume ever since we had the communicative facility to say: "That guy there, he's looking at your girl." – Jae Carr Jun 19 '17 at 22:05
  • 3
    Who says that the reasons given (though your list seems to have disappeared) are in fact always pretexts, and not the actual reasons? – jamesqf Jun 20 '17 at 05:49
  • @jamesqf I'm sure some of them are - e.g. Britain entering WWII. But the initial agressor is often cunning in portraying it's goals. – JonathanReez Jun 20 '17 at 06:07
  • Have you been playing Civ6? This concept is now a mechanic in the game, and the penalties for going to war for no or insufficient reasons increase dramatically as you approach the modern era (i.e. naked land grabs are more acceptable in ancient times, but you've got to at least gin up some kind of a reason later in the game). – Zach Lipton Jun 20 '17 at 07:34
  • 1
    @JonathanReez You could summarize the question as "When did Casus Belli become required to wage war?" – user2259716 Jun 20 '17 at 15:24
  • 1
    The history of warfare is similarly subdivided, though here the phases are retribution, anticipation, and diplomacy. Thus, retribution: “I’m going to kill you because you killed my brother.” Anticipation: “I’m going to kill you because I killed your brother.” And diplomacy: “I’m going to kill my brother and then kill you on the pretext that your brother did it.” - Douglas Adams – SusanW Jun 20 '17 at 15:38
  • 1
    Helen of Troy. This is an old habit. – KorvinStarmast Nov 22 '17 at 20:57

1 Answers1

58

I think it has always been done, e.g., 3,000 years ago Greeks justified a war by a kidnapping allegation.

Justification of war is important for one's own troop and population morale, so the theoretical framework has been around for millennia.

Paraphrasing @SPavel, "your people are unlikely to risk their lives just because you are bored, or greedy, or horny".

Note that this does not mean that the justification has to be fake. If your group (tribe, city, state, nation, empire) is starving, waging a war for resources is likely to sound reasonable to your people.

The bottom line is that the war pretext exists first and foremost for internal consumption. (Here internal may include allies).

A secondary reason is actually getting more and more important with the development of civilization and diplomacy: avoid war in the future. A party which, first, clearly states the reasons for war, and, second, sticks to them (i.e., goes to war if and only if certain conditions are satisfied), may be less likely to find itself faced with war (depending on how reasonable the conditions sound to the neighbors and how reasonable those neighbors are themselves).

Regarding this secondary reason and avoiding war in the future in general, please see the Nobel lecture aptly named War and Peace by Robert Aumann - a genius game theorist.

sds
  • 26,987
  • 2
  • 88
  • 140
  • 19
    Indeed. Your citizens are much less likely to lay down their lives if the stated reason is "the king is bored". – SPavel Jun 19 '17 at 19:29
  • 6
    ... or just greedy, or horny or ... – sds Jun 19 '17 at 19:31
  • 4
    This is a good answer to the first half of the question, but I was hoping for an answer to the other part: When did it become necessary to somehow rationalize the use of force? (emphasis added) – Charles Jun 20 '17 at 03:51
  • 1
    @Charles: Why would anyone use force for irrational (in their own worldview, which may be neither yours nor mine) reasons? Take for instance religious wars: however irrational they may appear to me, to a true believer killing and/or forcibly converting the benighted heathen to the one true faith is not only rational, but admirable. – jamesqf Jun 20 '17 at 05:54
  • 1
    @jamesqf often wars are nothing more than an attempt to seize land and resources - e.g. the Mongol conquests or the expansion on European colonies in Africa. But you don't hear leaders saying that directly. – JonathanReez Jun 20 '17 at 06:10
  • 3
    @jamesqf Just like Jonathan said above, a lot of wars were just naked attempts to steal resources, people, and land. Today these are never given as reasons, there is always some other pretext. In either case the use of force had that ugly but 'rational' motive, but at some point the idea of having a veneer of respectability went from "nice to have" to obligatory, and I think the question asks about that point in addition to the simpler question of how long has it been done at all. – Charles Jun 20 '17 at 06:24
  • 6
    @Charles I think you're going to have a hard time finding a specific point in time. I suspect that one important tipping point is the development of formal military alliances. 'Moar resources!' can easily be sold to your own populace as a valid reason, but if you have an ally who might come to your aid only because you signed a paper 3 years ago, then he's going to need a justification for his people too. – Falc Jun 20 '17 at 09:04
  • 2
    "or horny" cough Iliad cough – DVK Jun 20 '17 at 13:20
  • 1
    @sds I saw "kidnapping allegation" and got confused, but laughed when I saw what it was. +1 – user2259716 Jun 20 '17 at 15:20
  • A pretext is always useful, but only necessary when the declaring leader does not have absolute power. Externally, if he is fearful of repercussions from foreign powers, internally if he does not have absolute control over his followers.The actual pretext's value depends on the circumstances. Taking land or resources may seem a poor excuse, but if your people are starving or your industry is failing it works pretty well. I imagine it began with the first non-family collective group. Tribal or not. The development of separate cultures, political entities, and diplomacy likely furthered it. – user2259716 Jun 20 '17 at 15:20
  • @Falc I think that is very nearly an answer of itself! – Charles Jun 20 '17 at 15:27
  • The kidnap of Helen being the cause of the war is almost certainly not historical (indeed the historicity of the war itself is not clear). – Casey Jun 20 '17 at 17:10
  • 1
    @Charles: Historically, a lot of the wars that were about taking land, resources, &c didn't come with a lot of reasons beyond that, e.g. WWII with Hitler's desire for "lebensraum" & Japan's imperialism. – jamesqf Jun 20 '17 at 17:37
  • 1
    @JonathanReez: And sometimes one's political opponents use the "just about resources &c" as propaganda, when the supposed pretexts really are the reason. – jamesqf Jun 21 '17 at 06:44