extreme phenomenon of social life, organized armed struggle between states, or their coalitions (and, accordingly, the peoples involved), or between social groups or ethnic groups of society, acting as a continuation of their policies (and, equally, intentions of a political nature) by violent means in antagonistic (hostile, irreconcilable) relations, their extreme development, state. V. - a specific social conflict, the use (by these subjects) of armed and any means of violence used in this capacity as a way to achieve political goals and resolve social contradictions of a political nature; extreme, extreme form of resolving interstate or intrastate political contradictions. The invariant, essential features of the phenomenon of violence allow us to consider this event objectively only in relation to society, a certain level of development and the specific nature of socio-political relations. The categorical definition of the essence of the phenomenon of V. excludes in scientific operations various “broad” interpretations of this concept, often used at the everyday level and advocated by some philosophizing schools. In particular, its extension to the technosphere (the violence of machines), the biosphere (the struggle for existence in nature), etc., where the concept of violence is either metaphorized or identified with the broader concepts of “struggle” and “violence”; as a result of which the phenomenon of V. is seen not only in animals, but also in insects and in the entire physical universe as a “fact of nature” - such approaches meet with serious objections in science. From an objective position, the “excessively” class (emphasized by the philosophical school of Marxism-Leninism) aspects of defining the essence of military violence as the implementation or armed violence for political purposes are also overestimated - objective reality, which must be taken into account, analyzed and anticipated ways of its possible use.
As an independent scientific problem, biology has been actively studied since the mid-20th century. branch of modern political science - military political science (appearing in Western science under the names "polemology" (the science of violence), "vilensology" (the science of violence). Military political science in its most concise definition is the science of the role of military force in foreign and internal political relations and its use by political subjects (authorities) to defend their interests. Comprehensive development The latest comprehensive knowledge about biology is also provided by relevant research in other sciences. The subject of philosophical studies of the phenomenon of V. are problematic issues: about the essence of V. as a social phenomenon and its historical genesis; about V.’s place in the series of civilizational phenomena and its role in history - its influence on social development; about the main types and types of V. of various historical eras; about the underlying patterns and trends in changes in the essence of V.; about the possibilities and conditions for eliminating V. from the life of society, etc.
The specific content of warfare - armed struggle - is studied by a set of disciplines that directly represent military science (the theory of military art - strategy, operational art, tactics, in which they develop theoretical basis planning, preparation, conduct and comprehensive support of military operations of the appropriate scale; theory of military development, exploring issues of composition and organization, structure and technical equipment of the armed forces in peaceful and war time, systems for their mobilization, recruitment and deployment, training of reserves, organization of military service and other issues; the theory of military training and education, which develops forms and methods of operational combat training, the formation of the necessary combat qualities of personnel, the coordination of units, units, formations in order to ensure high combat effectiveness and combat readiness of the armed forces as the main and decisive means of warfare, as well as a number of others. special theories - branches of social, natural and technical sciences that meet the needs of military affairs). Along with this, war as a complex socio-political phenomenon is studied in historical (history of war), legal (military law) and other aspects. In the system of modern, actively developing philosophical knowledge about history, the prevailing, widely recognized concept of viewing history exclusively as a phenomenon of the political history of society, as a socio-political factor. The genesis of politics is objectively considered in connection with the formation of the statehood of peoples and the emergence of politics as a specific type of state (social) activity. Elements of V. mature in the depths of antiquity and clearly reveal themselves at the civilizational stage of the so-called. "military democracy" of the period of decomposition of the primitive communal system, noted by Morgan in the work " Ancient society" (1877): it was then that "... war and organization for war become... regular functions of national life", revealing the "economic trade" of robbery of other tribes, and later of fellow tribesmen. In subsequent stages civilizational development V. acquires other specific functions (expansion, punitive suppression, violent “reorganization of the world,” etc.), which are realized as historically necessary. That is, V. is a phenomenon that has specifically historical background, conditions, the real beginning and limits of its development, functions in social practice, in the civilizational process. V. and society, or rather the state and V., politics and V. are born and evolve together, in an objective, organic relationship.
As a socio-political phenomenon, violence has a historically transitory character. Indeed, the approximately 6,000-year period of human history (of peoples who have transitioned to statehood), as science states, is associated with the phenomenon of violence (and all of them are included in the content of politics), of which more than 14.5 thousand have already occurred, large and small, in incl. two world wars of the 20th century; in their course and because of them, over 3.6 billion people died, died of hunger and epidemics, and innumerable and irreplaceable material and spiritual values of many civilizations were destroyed. The deep laws of the genesis and evolution of violence, in conjunction with the policies of states, also entirely determine the objective possibility of eliminating violence (by alternative policies) from social practice and the inevitability of the epochal transition of peoples to world history without V., which opens up completely unprecedented civilizational prospects. Maturation of fundamental scientific ideas about the socio-political nature of V., its historically transitory nature and the conditions for its complete elimination from the life of society is reflected in numerous historical and philosophical data and receives further fundamental development in the modern search by the universal human mind for specific ways of liberation from the bloody Moloch. The view of V. as a social evil was formed already in ancient times. In the Old Testament book of Genesis, in ancient greek mythology, the Scandinavian “Edda”, the ancient Chinese treatise “Tao Te Ching” and other sources, the protest against V. takes the form of dreams of an irrevocably past “golden age”, when all people were brothers and did not know V. The desire to reveal the nature of V. is characteristic of social thought since the slave era. The first steps in this direction were taken by the ancient Chinese commander and thinker Sun Tzu (6-5 centuries BC), ancient indian brahmin Chanakya (4th century BC), the ancient Greek historian Thucydides (5th-4th centuries BC), who noted the connection of V. with the state of life of peoples and state affairs. Ancient Greek philosophers (Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, etc.) made a significant step in the analysis of the social nature of V. Noting that the primitive state of people was distinguished by the natural dominance of brute force, the inherent nature of V. in the primitive “wild” society, as well as judgments about V. are categorically denied. as the eternal, natural state of society. Clashes of ancient migrating tribes or so-called. “ancient V.”, indeed, in essence not V., because They do not at all represent any special specific activity of the tribes. Democritus was one of the first to raise the question of the origin of V. and tried to answer it. The genesis of V., according to his teaching, is due to economic and socio-political reasons, and the property inequality of people. As a rule, on this basis all kinds of discord and conflicts arise between people. And especially often they occur in a state where arbitrariness reigns and the poverty of citizens increases. Among the causes of conflict and internal conflicts, Socrates named: human imperfection; the inability of people to understand the meaning of good and evil; violation of the rule of law in the state at the will of the rulers. Plato in the dialogue “Protagoras” defines V. as “part of political art.” According to Plato's "Republic", the concept of "V." and “discord” are different not only as “clashes between strangers” and “... between one’s own.” V. clearly stands out as, first of all, the goal and one of the foundations for the formation of a slave-owning state, i.e. political law of its development. Since the number of slaves (mostly captives) depends on the frequency of wars waged by the state, “... a continuous war begins between all states” (“Laws”). V. becomes the natural state of society, a legalized way of acquiring slaves and seizing foreign territories. The main principle of social development, according to Plato, is the right of the strong over the weak. However, the organizer of a perfect state should not establish laws “for the sake of military action,” but, on the contrary, should establish “laws relating to war for the sake of peace.” And “among strife,” according to Plato, “one must remember peace” (“The State”). Aristotle (“Politics”) also considers violence in an organic relationship with politics and other aspects of social life, paying attention to the main aspects of its content: first of all, the goals pursued by armed violence; and direct armed struggle. Objective scientific fact- It was with the acquisition of political content that military action acquired developed forms and gave rise to its own permanent social institutions (armed forces) that support it. The essential connection between history and politics was conceptualized in subsequent centuries. The complexity of understanding such a social phenomenon as V., however, misled more than one generation of thinkers of the past. Not many people succeeded in expressing the idea that violence is not some independent social phenomenon, but a secondary phenomenon dependent on politics.
A philosophical conclusion about the essence of V. was made in the 19th century. German military theorist K. von Clausewitz (1780-1831), formulated its classic formula. V., he wrote, “...is nothing more than the continuation of state policy by other means”; V. - “... not only a political act, but also a true instrument of politics, the continuation of political relations, their implementation by other means” (“On War”). IN historical development of social thought in relation to V. the following milestones are noteworthy. During the period of the Roman Empire, the concept of a cosmopolitan PAX Romana emerged - a forcibly expanded world supported by the military power of Rome. More than once in history it served as an ideological guideline for the formation (and existence) through large-scale military expansions of various empires or the so-called. “military-type civilizations” (Spencer), which is reflected in the policies (great power, hegemony, neo-globalism, etc.) of some states right up to the present day. In the development of Christian-theological (characteristic of European culture, quite widespread at the present time) views on V. are fundamentally ideas about the “sinfulness” of V., its incompatibility with the teachings of Christ (Clement, Origen, Tertullian), which do not, however, exclude the recognition of the principle of “sacred” V. in defense of the Faith and the Fatherland (conceptually justified by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas). Already in the 16-17 centuries. Humanists (T. More, Erasmus of Rotterdam, F. Rabelais, M. Montaigne, G. Grotius, etc.), who sharply condemned V. (the feudal era), first put forward ideas for limiting the destructive effects of V. Around the 17th century. humanistic (still very idealistic in content) projects of “eternal peace” appeared (E. Cruce, 1623, I. Kant, 1795). Representatives of social thought of the 18th century. [Montesquieu, D. Diderot, J.-J. Rousseau, Voltaire] V. is criticized as a social relic of the “barbarian era”, military conquests and violence are condemned, ideas of equality of peoples are put forward and defended. Since the 19th century anti-war argumentation actively includes - R. Owen, C. Fourier, Marx, Engels, Lenin - the ideas of reorganizing social life on socialist and communist principles as a condition for the natural elimination of war in modern era humanity. When the “working classes” acquire decisive influence in the state, as N. Chernyshevsky once believed, “all possibility of war will disappear,” the establishment of a new moral world is coming. A deep moral analysis of the problem of V., for the first time approaching its consideration from the standpoint of moral and cultural dimensions, was carried out by V.S. Solovyov. V., he notes, is not only a socio-political phenomenon, but also, and even mainly, a phenomenon of the spiritual and cultural sphere of life, the most acute manifestation spiritual conflict different cultures; in the identity of the history of mankind with the history of V. one sees a “chronic illness of mankind” (“Three Conversations about War, Progress and the End of World History”). V.S. Solovyov associated both the causes of V. and the determining conditions for their elimination primarily with the moral and spiritual sphere of people’s lives. The development of these ideas was then continued at the beginning of the 20th century. Berdyaev, E.N. Trubetskoy and others.
In the 20th century humanity, which has survived two world wars, the threat of a nuclear apocalypse and hundreds of local military conflicts, proclaims the highest significance of the idea: war can no longer be a continuation of politics by violent armed means, self-excluding weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological, radiation, etc.) , and, in principle, the use of such means that threaten the death of the entire civilization; The creation of a nonviolent world becomes an urgent practical task for the world community. The presence of weapons of mass destruction refutes the inviolability of the conclusion of orthodox Clausevictionism about the essence of warfare, since it is quite obvious that such weapons can neither be limited nor controlled in such a way that they can be used to achieve any political goal. The theory of “neoclausevicionism” is being formed and approved, the essence of which is to substantiate the doctrine of achieving superiority over the enemy through the non-use of force and weapons. Modern processes"demilitarization" public consciousness put forward and constantly generate a whole system of ideas (and concepts) regarding the causes, essence, social nature of modern wars and military conflicts, the influence on them of turbulent political processes occurring in most states and regions of the world. The names of philosophers, political scientists, and specialists on these problems are widely known, such as: Y. Galtung, D. Benerjee, Boulding, C. Moskos, V. Scheelen, B. Flickenstein, A. Rappoport, G. Hagen, J. Eberly, S. Blagovolin, B. Kanevsky, A. Lilov, E. Rybkin and others. The role of European and American research centers in the development of philosophical problems of V. is well known. Among them: Royal Institute of International Affairs (UK), Institute public relations at the Bundeswehr (Germany), Center for Russian and Euro-Asian Studies of the Monterrey Institute (USA), Arms Control Center (Canada), Defense Information Center (USA), Russian Association "Army and Society", etc. Solving the problem of "peace or survival" American scientist A. Claude sees, for example, the correct formulation of the issue of “power management” on a global scale. He proceeds from the fact that force cannot be eliminated, because human groups will always be able to cause harm to each other, as we see throughout human existence. If on at this stage development, people are not able to destroy destructive forces, then it is necessary to strive for their widespread management, “reasonably” linking them (F. Dyson) with diplomacy and moral problems. According to the concept of the American sociologist Ch. Moskos, as modern states evolve from a “readiness society to V.” to the "containment society V." and from him to the “society of denial V.” the status and functions of the armed forces will change accordingly (Moskos Ch. “Armed forces in the “war denial society”). After the Second World War, the ideas of nonviolent struggle became widespread in the political processes of our time. These ideas, which arose in the Middle Ages in Europe, accentuated by L N. Tolstoy’s philosophy of “non-resistance to evil through violence”, developed in the works of Emerson, Thoreau and others, was most deeply continued in the philosophy of “Gandhism” by M. Gandhi. The pacifist movement, which rejects any kind of violence, as well as the creators of the new, are actively guided by them. peace based on the principles of non-violence. However, the philosophical formula of the essence of V., given by Clausewitz, has by no means lost its scientific and practical significance. In general, although it has received a number of interpretations in the latest scientific interpretations, it is accepted by everyone as the starting point of philosophical, political science and. other analysis of V. It has been recognized for a century and a half that this formula most fully characterizes the essence of V. in its connection with politics. It, as if in focus, collects all the most important connections and relationships of the V. process; The deep roots that feed V. and their ripening in the depths of socio-economic life lead to this “focus.” The fact is that all political interests that are realized in the process of victory are dictated by deeper economic and social class interests. Politics itself is only a concentrated expression of all these interests. From here come all subsequent connections that determine the meaning of the unraveling, the course, and development of the war. Any of the wars currently carried out in the so-called. "hot spots" on the planet, is a continuation of the policies of certain states, peoples and nations, clearly expressing, first of all, their material, economic and other determining interests (the objective underlying cause of wars according to historical and modern data). Methodologically significant for the formation of an attitude towards war or a military conflict (in a broad sense it means any military conflict, including world wars, in a narrow sense - the stage preceding the highest stage of confrontation - war) is their socio-political assessment. It includes the definition of the “status” of war (conflict, military action) in the experienced historical period, its orientation (progressive or reactionary) according to its socio-political character. Determining the socio-political character of a revolution is the fundamental question of assessing its essence. According to the socio-political nature, wars are classified into: fair (any war in defense, defensive or domestic, as well as national liberation), unfair (any aggression and colonial conquests), and unfair on the part of all armed conflicting participants.
Currently global community believes that it is necessary to be guided in assessing the socio-political character of war not only by the criterion of national interests, but at the same time by the criterion of compliance with the norms of war international law. The types and forms of use of military force themselves are varied. On specific grounds, wars are classified into: internal (civil or armed conflicts of a non-international nature), external (interstate, coalition or international armed conflicts), their forerunners or consequences - military conflicts and other types of use of military violence (interventions, actions, demonstrations of force, "punitive" measures, military coups). B. there can be global and local (limited, regional military conflicts varying degrees intensity). V.'s apologetics on the part of militaristic-minded forces, traditionally based on ideas about the "eternity" and fatality of V. - Protagoras, Gorgias, O. Spengler, F. Nietzsche, S. Freud, etc. - about the positive role of V. as a kind of " healing power" in the life of states and peoples (Hegel), a kind of "hygiene of the world" (F.T. Marinetti), eliminating the growing "overpopulation" of the planet (T.R. Malthus), incl. “inferior races” (Hitler) and providing geopolitically necessary “living space” for more civilized peoples (R. Kjellen, F. Ratzel, K. Haushofer, N. Speakman); about the importance of war as a factor in accelerating progress and the inevitability of civilizational wars (S. Huntington) - this whole “philosophy of militarism and war.” the mind of humanity is opposed to truly life-affirming philosophical ideas peace, the formation by the common efforts of states of a comprehensive system international security on the principles of non-violence. The logic of terrible enthymemes is rejected: “if you want peace, prepare for war.”; “armed peace is the most reliable guarantee of security”; “nuclear weapons are the guarantor of peace, strength and sovereignty of both large and small states”; “it is necessary for each state to have its own security that would undermine the security of another state”; “forceful punishment of the enemy”, etc. Alternative principles are affirmed: understanding nuclear realities, factors of integrity and interconnectedness of the world; renunciation of the threat and use of military force; respect for the sovereignty and sovereign equality of states, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs; resolution of disputes (overcoming antagonistic relations) exclusively by peaceful means; preventing expansion by disrupting the criminal plans of rival states to redistribute the world, preventing the escalation of military conflicts that have begun; humanism and peaceful coexistence, development of cooperation between states, common decision global problems.
A number of interstate humanitarian law (IHL) treaties exist and are in force; prohibiting the use of certain types of weapons and methods of warfare. These include: The Hague Conventions, 1907; Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons during Wars of August 12, 1949; Hague Protection Convention cultural values during armed conflict (1954); Convention on the Prohibition of Bacteriological (Biological) Weapons (1972); Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Hostile Use of Environmental Modifications (1976); Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Cause Excessive Injury or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (1980); Convention on the Prohibition of Production, Storage and Stockpiling chemical weapons and its destruction (1993), etc. The world has long since crossed the line beyond which warfare has become an unacceptable instrument of politics.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
- War is a conflict between political entities - states, tribes, political groups, and so on - occurring on the basis of various claims, in the form of armed confrontation, military (combat) actions between their armed forces.
As a rule, war is a means of imposing one's will on an opponent. One political subject is trying to forcefully change the behavior of another, force him to renounce his freedom, ideology, property rights, give up resources: territory, water area, etc.
According to Clausewitz, “war is the continuation of politics by other, violent means.” It depends on the political leadership whether to start a war, with what intensity to wage it, when and on what conditions to agree to reconciliation with the enemy. Acquiring allies and creating coalitions also depends on political leadership. The internal policies of states also have a great influence on the conduct of war. Thus, a weak government needs quick success; success in war also depends on domestic policy, as well as on complete agreement between the foreign policy leadership and the military command, which also depend on the internal organization of the state.
The main means of achieving the goals of war is organized armed struggle as the main and decisive means, as well as economic, diplomatic, ideological, informational and other means of struggle. In this sense, war is organized armed violence aimed at achieving political goals. Total war is armed violence taken to extreme limits. The main means in war are the armed forces (army, air force and navy). The general goal of war is always to weaken the enemy until he can no longer resist. This can be achieved by defeating enemy military forces and conquering the enemy country, and sometimes by preventing the supply of means of subsistence, etc.
Military writers generally define war as an armed conflict in which the rival groups are sufficiently equal in strength to make the outcome of the battle uncertain. Armed conflicts militarily strong countries with states at a primitive level of development are called peace enforcement in the current paradigm of military strategy, military expeditions or the development of new territories; with small states - interventions or reprisals; with internal groups - uprisings, rebellions or internal conflicts (Civil War). Such incidents, if the resistance is sufficiently strong or long-lasting, may reach a sufficient scale to be classified as "war". The absence of war is called peace.
War is the most terrible and terrible phenomenon in the history of mankind. The war can last a year or a century. A war can be civil or interstate, global or local, aggressive or liberating, but war is always blood, pain, sacrifices and destruction. In this lesson we will talk about what kind of wars there are, what the causes of their occurrence, objects and participants may be, as well as what stages of social conflict there are.
Rice. 2. Napoleon Bonaparte ()
Rice. 3. Charles de Gaulle ()
Rice. 4. Dwight Eisenhower ()
Secondly, the government may view war as a good thing. For the state, war is a means of distracting the people from their daily needs. social problems. An example can be considered Russian-Japanese War 1904-1905. From the point of view of the Minister of Internal Affairs Vyacheslav Konstantinovich Plehve (Fig. 5), Russia needed a “small victorious war” so that people would stop thinking about revolution. True, the war did not turn out to be small, much less victorious. As you remember from the history course, Russia lost this war in disgrace. You can also remember Franco-Prussian War 1870-1871., when Napoleon III - the French emperor - was no less interested in the war than Prussia, which wanted to use this war to unify Germany. Napoleon III understood that his authority among the people was falling, he was losing social support, and he also needed a “small victorious war” to strengthen his power. But for him it also did not turn out to be victorious.
Rice. 5. Minister of Internal Affairs Vyacheslav Konstantinovich Pleve ()
Thirdly, very often war is perceived as way to restore justice. The shortest way to restore justice was perceived First World War . So, during it and the revolutions in Russia, Emperor Nicholas II lost his throne, and the monarchy was replaced by a socialist system. In England, France and Germany, an incredible rise in national spirit began, and the war was perceived as fair.
This principle of restoring justice appeared before the 20th century. Nicolas de Chamfort, a famous publicist of the French Revolution, said that French revolution was supposed to bring grief to the rich and happiness to the poor. But she brought the Jacobin dictatorship, Napoleonic wars and the complete collapse of France's foreign policy doctrine after the defeat of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815.
Of course, not everyone considers war a good thing. Another group of people perceives the war as a given. From this point of view, it is impossible to fight war, but one must learn to coexist with it. Most often, people say that they did not want to fight, but since the state is drawn into the war, its citizens have to fight. You can once again turn to the events of the First World War, when each country considered itself offended and thus sought to accept the rules of the game imposed by someone. Russia entered the war because Germany declared war on it, Germany defended its interests in the Balkans, Austria-Hungary wanted to subjugate Serbia. As a result, all countries had their own reasons for participating in this war. Each tried to place responsibility for the start of this war on the other.
If there is no reason for war, then one can always be created. Different countries can use the most various events as a reason to declare war. The reason for the First World War was assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (Fig. 6), heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Germany and Austria-Hungary were only looking for a pretext, an event that could become the basis for the start of a future pan-European conflict. In the second half of the 20th century, reasons for war arose constantly. When the US needed a pretext to invade Vietnam, the fact of the shelling was used American ship. As a result, the Americans sent troops into Vietnam and the war began. It lasted 8 years and ended in 1973.
Rice. 6. Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand ()
If we look at the war through the eyes of the ordinary civilian population, then from their perspective, war is a disaster. Let's remember Great Patriotic War . A huge number of victims, hunger, economic decline - all these are troubles for the common population. Any war brings a huge number of killed and wounded, which means grief for the people.
Speaking of war, let's look at famous painting V.V. Vereshchagina - “Apotheosis of War” (Fig. 7). Vereshchagin himself fought in Central Asia, when Russia extended its influence there, competing with England and wanting to expand its economic opportunities. Vereshchagin himself could observe such pictures in Central Asia; he himself was a participant in the battles. On the frame of the painting he wrote the following dedication: "Dedicated to all great conquerors, past, present and future." No matter how just a war is, it is always a disaster.
Rice. 7. Painting by V.V. Vereshchagin "Apotheosis of War" ()
There is also no unity among theorists on this issue. All causes of war can be divided into three groups:: reasons internal, external and psychological.
Domestic- these are reasons that arise in the depths of society itself. They can be roughly divided into economic and social. A war begins because the state needs resources, or because the state has a social need for this conflict, for example, the already mentioned “little victorious” Russo-Japanese War. A state that needs war for one reason or another often begins to provoke its neighbors so that this conflict will sooner or later begin.
More often than not, wars begin with external reasons. Such reasons are also called geopolitical. It is external reasons that cause such wars as colonial: the struggle for living space, for external sources raw materials. In these external reasons, it is not so important for the state whether these reasons are real or contrived for the outbreak of a conflict. The only significant reason in the colonial wars was the desire to acquire one or another economic resource. Usually these are fertile lands or a large amount of cheap work force. Such external reasons served as the beginning of the First and Second World Wars. These are wars in which there was a struggle for territory, for colonies, for resources.
Wars can have psychological reasons . This means that they are rooted in the essence of war not from the point of view of the state, but from the point of view of each individual person. Thus, the great psychologist (Fig. 8) believed that “Aggression is one of the basic human instincts”. Biologists point out that even apes had conflicts comparable to wars.
Rice. 8. Sigmund Freud ()
War is often perceived as psychological stress reliever. As an example, we can take the Soviet state. When the USSR was created, the main element of its foreign policy doctrine was preparation of the world revolution. When the Soviet Union had to participate in military conflicts, there was no longer talk of a world revolution. Everyone understood that war meant grief, blood, enormous sacrifices, as well as economic collapse.
Speaking about war, we need to remember such a concept as social conflict, because war is a form of social conflict. Social conflict- this is the relationship between the parties to social interaction associated with the contradiction of their interests. In order for a contradiction between the interests of the subjects of this conflict to arise, it is necessary to understand who the parties to the conflict are and what they want. Until people realize their contradictions, war will not begin.
Subject conflict can be anything. It could be land, money, ideology. When we talk about subjects social conflict, then we must understand that the subjects include a large number of people. The most obvious participants in the conflict are opponents- subjects opposing each other. Opponents are soldiers who fight at the front against each other. But the conflict was started by states, so they are the main warring parties. Also in the conflict there are groups involved. They include all the soldiers who are on the front line. Let's remember Battle of Kulikovo. It began with a duel between Peresvet and Chelubey (Fig. 9). During this battle, Peresvet and Chelubey acted as opponents, that is, subjects opposing each other. The Russian army on the one hand and the Mongol-Tatar army on the other are already involved groups. In addition to the groups involved there are interest groups, and they are much more. The interested group can be considered the population of all of Rus', which stood behind Peresvet. The future fate of the Russian lands depended on the outcome of the Battle of Kulikovo. If the Battle of Kulikovo had been lost, then the overthrow Tatar-Mongol yoke would have been impossible at that moment. Behind Chelubey and Mamai stood not only his army, but also the entire population of the Golden Horde.
Rice. 9. Duel between Peresvet and Chelubey on the Kulikovo Field, 1380 ()
Any conflict (war) can be divided into stages. Any conflict begins with the so-called latent stage. This is a stage at which contradictions have not yet formed. When Hitler came to power in 1933, it was perceived in the Soviet Union as an event that would have clearly negative consequences. At the same time, it was not easy to explain exactly how Hitler threatened the Soviet Union in 1933, because nothing foreshadowed war. When the contradictions are recognized by all parties, the second stage of the conflict begins - conflict formation. At this stage, the contradictions are already clearly defined, the parties have already declared their claims to some future actions or future acquisitions. The formation of the conflict can be considered June 22, 1941 (Fig. 10) when Germany declared war on the Soviet Union. After the contradictions have been formed and officially formulated, an event must occur that formalizes the beginning of the war - incident. Such an event can be considered something that becomes reason to declare war. For the First World War, for example, it was the declaration of war by Austria-Hungary on Serbia and the beginning of Russian mobilization. In World War II, this was the Gleiwitz provocation on the night of August 31 to September 1. Next stage - active actions parties. These are the battles themselves, the battles, the war itself. When the main contradictions are resolved, the stage begins end of the conflict. It is at this stage that it is determined what the war cost each side and how the war will subsequently turn out both for the residents of the countries at war and for those people who did not fight. The process of peace settlement determines the outcome of the war itself.
- withdrawal (attempt to avoid conflict);
- cancellation (an attempt to make maximum concessions, smoothing out contradictions);
- suppression (liquidation of the opponent, complete defeat of the enemy);
- regulation (the parties conduct long negotiations and as a result come to a general agreement, there are no winners and losers, the parties agree and choose the most reasonable option).
War can be viewed as a social conflict that has gone through at least three stages of its development. War is a conflict that did not stop at the stage of formation of contradictions, it is a conflict that reached the point of incident and formed the active actions of the parties. According to spheres of social life, wars can be divided into political, economic, cultural and intercivilizational, but such a division is only conditional. Every social conflict is generated by a whole fusion of contradictions, and it is not always possible to separate a political conflict from an economic or cultural one.
Bibliography
- Yu. Bondarev. Hot Snow
- B. Vasiliev. Not on the lists
- B. Vasiliev. And the dawns here are quiet
- Quincy Wright. Some reflections on war and peace // Theory of International Relations: Reader / Comp. P. A. Tsygankov. - M.: Gardariki, 2003
- Strachan H., Carl von Clausewitz “On War.” - M.: AST: Poligrafizdat, 2010.
- A. Stepanov. Port Arthur
- Suvorov A.V. The science of winning
- Tolstoy L.N. War and Peace
- Erich Maria Remarque. On western front no change
- E. Hemingway. A Farewell to Arms
- Studopedia.ru ().
- Ruskline.ru ().
- Studfiles.ru ().
- Studme.org ().
Homework
- What categories of wars do you know?
- What theories of the origin of wars do you know?
- List the stages of social conflict.
- How do you perceive war: as a blessing, a given, or a disaster? Give reasons for your answer.
The entire history of mankind is riddled with wars and conflicts. And even nowadays you can often hear about such things in the news. So what is war? It is necessary to initially give a brief general definition of this term.
What are armed actions, struggle and manifestation of aggression between peoples, states, tribes, cities (any large organized group persons). In this counteraction, they use means of both physical, ideological and economic influence.
What is war? This is necessarily a struggle between organized social groups. The confrontation between organizations within the country for and economic dominance using forceful methods and throughout the country is called the War for state power is called a revolution.
What is war from a historical point of view? Over the past five and a half thousand years, according to historians, there have been about fourteen and a half thousand wars. This includes conflicts large and small, including two world wars. More than three and a half billion people died during these confrontations.
In the modern world, due to the end of the so-called “ cold war" between Soviet Union and which occurred in the second half of the last century, the likelihood and danger of using nuclear weapons in armed conflicts. As is known, such weapons have enormous destructive power.
What is war today? Even in the twenty-first century, local conflicts continue. They are mainly associated with territorial, religious, national differences, separatist movements, tribal strife and other things (in history this is called the “essence of war”). Societies such as the International Community strive to create systems of interstate relations that would eliminate the threat of force.
What is war in symbolism? It is a symbol of reunion and separation, establishing order and eliminating disorder. In religion, this is a symbol of the eternal confrontation between evil forces and good ones, a symbol of the conflict between Light and Darkness. However, war in mysticism and esotericism is more of a spiritual battle to achieve unity.
What is war in art and science? This process can be viewed as an act of violence, which aims to force a rival (enemy, oppositionist) to carry out the will imposed by force. To counter this act of aggression, inventions of science and art are used. Thus, war (like any physical or moral violence) is exclusively a means. But the goal can be called precisely imposing one’s own will on the enemy.
The purpose of military action is to destroy the enemy, disarm him, and deprive him of the ability to resist. War occurs mainly due to two different factors: hostile intent and feeling. However, the decisive, final act of war cannot be viewed as something absolute, since the defeated country sees in it only evil, which can be completely eliminated in the future (this is called “extended time of war”).
