Cause and effect essay on war of 1812

The death toll of World War II, being over 60 million, surpasses all other war-death-tolls. Military personnel subject to combat in war often suffer mental and physical injuries, including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder , disease, injury, and death. In every war in which American soldiers have fought in, the chances of becoming a psychiatric casualty — of being debilitated for some period of time as a consequence of the stresses of military life — were greater than the chances of being killed by enemy fire.

These studies suggest most military personnel resist firing their weapons in combat, that — as some theorists argue — human beings have an inherent resistance to killing their fellow human beings. Psychiatric casualties manifest themselves in fatigue cases, confusional states, conversion hysteria, anxiety, obsessional and compulsive states, and character disorders. United States military casualties of war since have totaled over two million. Of the 60 million European military personnel who were mobilized in World War I , 8 million were killed, 7 million were permanently disabled, and 15 million were seriously injured.

During Napoleon 's retreat from Moscow, more French military personnel died of typhus than were killed by the Russians.

Causes and Effects - The Industrial Revolution

More military personnel were killed from — by typhus than from military action. For instance, during the Seven Years' War , the Royal Navy reported it conscripted , sailors, of whom , died of disease or were 'missing'. It is estimated that between and , , people per year died due to war. Most wars have resulted in significant loss of life, along with destruction of infrastructure and resources which may lead to famine , disease, and death in the civilian population. Most estimates of World War II casualties indicate around 60 million people died, 40 million of which were civilians.

Once a war has ended, losing nations are sometimes required to pay war reparations to the victorious nations. In certain cases, land is ceded to the victorious nations. For example, the territory of Alsace-Lorraine has been traded between France and Germany on three different occasions. Typically, war becomes intertwined with the economy and many wars are partially or entirely based on economic reasons.

Some economists [ who? For example, Russia's involvement in World War I took such a toll on the Russian economy that it almost collapsed and greatly contributed to the start of the Russian Revolution of World War II was the most financially costly conflict in history; its belligerents cumulatively spent about a trillion U. War leads to forced migration causing potentially large displacements of population. In war, cultural institutions, such as libraries, can become "targets in themselves; their elimination was a way to denigrate and demoralize the enemy population.

War aims may stand as a proxy for national-military resolve.

If you like our content, please share it on social media!

Fried defines war aims as "the desired territorial, economic, military or other benefits expected following successful conclusion of a war". War aims can change in the course of conflict and may eventually morph into "peace conditions" [81] — the minimal conditions under which a state may cease to wage a particular war. Religious groups have long formally opposed or sought to limit war as in the Second Vatican Council document Gaudiem et Spes : "Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself.

It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation. In the 21st century, worldwide anti-war movements occurred in response to the United States invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Organizations like Stop the War Coalition , based in the United Kingdom, worked on campaigning against the war. The Mexican Drug War , with estimated casualties of 40, since December , has recently faced fundamental opposition.

It won the recognition of President Calderon, who began war. There are many theories about the motivations for war, but no consensus about which are most common.

Causes and Effects of the War of 1812

Dutch psychoanalyst Joost Meerloo held that, "War is often In this destructive scenario, these others are made to serve as the scapegoat of unspoken and subconscious frustrations and fears. Other psychoanalysts such as E. Durban and John Bowlby have argued human beings are inherently violent. By this theory, the nation state preserves order in the local society while creating an outlet for aggression through warfare.

For the adult, nations are the sacred objects that generate warfare. Fornari focused upon sacrifice as the essence of war: the astonishing willingness of human beings to die for their country, to give over their bodies to their nation.

Despite Fornari's theory that man's altruistic desire for self-sacrifice for a noble cause is a contributing factor towards war, few wars have originated from a desire for war among the general populace. One psychological theory that looks at the leaders is advanced by Maurice Walsh. War is caused by leaders who seek war such as Napoleon and Hitler.

Such leaders most often come to power in times of crisis when the populace opts for a decisive leader, who then leads the nation to war.

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. Several theories concern the evolutionary origins of warfare. There are two main schools: One sees organized warfare as emerging in or after the Mesolithic as a result of complex social organization and greater population density and competition over resources; the other sees human warfare as a more ancient practice derived from common animal tendencies, such as territoriality and sexual competition.

The latter school argues that since warlike behavior patterns are found in many primate species such as chimpanzees , [95] as well as in many ant species, [96] group conflict may be a general feature of animal social behavior. Some proponents of the idea argue that war, while innate, has been intensified greatly by developments of technology and social organization such as weaponry and states. Psychologist and linguist Steven Pinker argued that war-related behaviors may have been naturally selected in the ancestral environment due to the benefits of victory.

Crofoot and Wrangham have argued that warfare, if defined as group interactions in which "coalitions attempt to aggressively dominate or kill members of other groups", is a characteristic of most human societies. Those in which it has been lacking "tend to be societies that were politically dominated by their neighbors".

Ashley Montagu strongly denied universalistic instinctual arguments, arguing that social factors and childhood socialization are important in determining the nature and presence of warfare. Thus, he argues, warfare is not a universal human occurrence and appears to have been a historical invention, associated with certain types of human societies. Low has observed correlation between warfare and education, noting societies where warfare is commonplace encourage their children to be more aggressive.


Essay on The Effects Of The War Of 1812

War can be seen as a growth of economic competition in a competitive international system. In this view wars begin as a pursuit of markets for natural resources and for wealth. War has also been linked to economic development by economic historians and development economists studying state-building and fiscal capacity. There are those on the extreme right of the political spectrum who provide support, fascists in particular, by asserting a natural right of a strong nation to whatever the weak cannot hold by force.

Generals , expressed support for an economic view of war. The Marxist theory of war is quasi-economic in that it states all modern wars are caused by competition for resources and markets between great imperialist powers, claiming these wars are a natural result of the free market and class system.

War of 1812 Facts & Worksheets

Part of the theory is that war will disappear once a world revolution , over-throwing free markets and class systems, has occurred. Marxist philosopher Rosa Luxemburg theorized that imperialism was the result of capitalist countries needing new markets. Expansion of the means of production is only possible if there is a corresponding growth in consumer demand. Since the workers in a capitalist economy would be unable to fill the demand, producers must expand into non-capitalist markets to find consumers for their goods, hence driving imperialism. Malthusian theories see expanding population and scarce resources as a source of violent conflict.

For this land which you now inhabit, shut in on all sides by the sea and the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; it scarcely furnishes food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage wars, and that many among you perish in civil strife. Let hatred, therefore, depart from among you; let your quarrels end. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from a wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. This is one of the earliest expressions of what has come to be called the Malthusian theory of war, in which wars are caused by expanding populations and limited resources.

Thomas Malthus — wrote that populations always increase until they are limited by war, disease, or famine. The violent herder—farmer conflicts in Nigeria , Mali , Sudan and other countries in the Sahel region have been exacerbated by land degradation and population growth.

Essay Archive

According to Heinsohn, who proposed youth bulge theory in its most generalized form, a youth bulge occurs when 30 to 40 percent of the males of a nation belong to the "fighting age" cohorts from 15 to 29 years of age. It will follow periods with total fertility rates as high as 4—8 children per woman with a 15—year delay. Heinsohn saw both past "Christianist" European colonialism and imperialism, as well as today's Islamist civil unrest and terrorism as results of high birth rates producing youth bulges.

Youth bulge theory has been subjected to statistical analysis by the World Bank, [] Population Action International , [] and the Berlin Institute for Population and Development. Rationalism is an international relations theory or framework. Rationalism and Neorealism international relations operate under the assumption that states or international actors are rational, seek the best possible outcomes for themselves, and desire to avoid the costs of war. Under another rationalist game theory without bargaining, the peace war game , optimal strategies can still be found that depend upon number of iterations played.

In "Rationalist Explanations for War", James Fearon examined three rationalist explanations for why some countries engage in war:. For instance, Geoffrey Blainey argues that war is a result of miscalculation of strength. He cites historical examples of war and demonstrates, "war is usually the outcome of a diplomatic crisis which cannot be solved because both sides have conflicting estimates of their bargaining power.

Within the rationalist tradition, some theorists have suggested that individuals engaged in war suffer a normal level of cognitive bias , [] but are still "as rational as you and me". The rationalist theory focused around bargaining is currently under debate. The Iraq War proved to be an anomaly that undercuts the validity of applying rationalist theory to some wars.

The following subsections consider causes of war from system, societal, and individual levels of analysis. This kind of division was first proposed by Kenneth Waltz in Man, the State, and War and has been often used by political scientists since then. There are several different international relations theory schools. Supporters of realism in international relations argue that the motivation of states is the quest for security, and conflicts can arise from the inability to distinguish defense from offense, which is called the security dilemma.

Within the realist school as represented by scholars such as Henry Kissinger and Hans Morgenthau , and the neorealist school represented by scholars such as Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer , two main sub-theories are:. The two theories are not mutually exclusive and may be used to explain disparate events according to the circumstance.

Liberalism as it relates to international relations emphasizes factors such as trade, and its role in disincentivizing conflict which will damage economic relations.