Throughout history small independent nations have been allowed to exist..like in Europe Belgium Luxembourg Netherlands Serbia and such...While I have nothing against this..doesn't it seem that the protection of these states (or nations) independence has lead to major wars

WW1-Serb rebels killed the Arch Duke of Austria-Hungary, starting WW1(ironiclly though it was American Allies(im american) who started the war..though we are made to belive it was Germany)

WW2-Germany wants the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, helping start a storm of appeasements that lead to WW2

Cold War-Small nations where used as influence around the world-example..Cuba for USSR and South Korea for US

I think this is an overly gross simplication of the real causes of those conflicts...

It seems to me that small states cause wars because larger ones are always trying to invade them.:crazyeye:

I think this is an overly gross simplication of the real causes of those conflicts...

Yeah.. it's sort of like saying "Say.. isn't it a bit strange that women were always around whenever wars were started? Surely women are the cause of wars, then!"

Now, that statement may be true, but my point stands.

No, no...

It is always large, powerful states that start wars, because they believe they have something to gain from them..
They sometimes use small states as an excuse, that's all!

Small states are pawns in a chess game. And you start a chess game with a pawn.

If the world were only made out of big states, that's not going to be quite a happy world.

If the world were only made out of big states, that's not going to be quite a happy world.

Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia?

Actually I think the Jews seem to cause wars.

Infracted for trolling. - KD

Small states are pawns in a chess game. And you start a chess game with a pawn.

Or a knight.

Austria's invasion of Serbia would not have led to a world war if Germany, Russia, France, and Great Britian didn't all have their own goals.

Small states don't necessarily start wars. It's usually larger states that force the smaller ones into declaring war on them. Example. Rome has to invade Anatolia. The Anatolians don't want to negotiate with the Romans for peace. The war is the fault of the Anatolians. Another more modern example. Saddam doesn't want peace and he is a threat to America. Since he doesn't want to leave Iraq, we have to invade to protect American lives.

Just cause A and B happen to exist at the same time doesn't mean A and B caused C to happen.

Throughout history small independent nations have been allowed to exist..like in Europe Belgium Luxembourg Netherlands Serbia and such...While I have nothing against this..doesn't it seem that the protection of these states (or nations) independence has lead to major wars

What war did Luxembourg start?

WW1-Serb rebels killed the Arch Duke of Austria-Hungary, starting WW1(ironiclly though it was American Allies(im american) who started the war..though we are made to belive it was Germany)

The United States had no Allies in the war. :)

This does not change the fact that it was the Austro-Hungarian ultamatum that started the war.

WW2-Germany wants the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, helping start a storm of appeasements that lead to WW2

:shakes head: Not going to even bother explaining this one.

Cold War-Small nations where used as influence around the world-example..Cuba for USSR and South Korea for US

And what about the big ones, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, or Brazil?

I think this is an overly gross simplication of the real causes of those conflicts...

I agree.

Small states don't necessarily start wars. It's usually larger states that force the smaller ones into declaring war on them. Example. Rome has to invade Anatolia. The Anatolians don't want to negotiate with the Romans for peace. The war is the fault of the Anatolians. Another more modern example. Saddam doesn't want peace and he is a threat to America. Since he doesn't want to leave Iraq, we have to invade to protect American lives.

That's like saying it's the murdered's fault the murderer shot him.

That's like saying it's the murdered's fault the murderer shot him.

See. Self-defense. Welcome to politics.

Another more modern example. Saddam doesn't want peace and he is a threat to America. Since he doesn't want to leave Iraq, we have to invade to protect American lives.

True, just like in '38 when hitler took the Sudetenland to save German lives.

Strange thread though

Edit: sorry 10chars

What war did Luxembourg start?
It almost started a war between France and Prussia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_crisis

:lol:

It couldn't do what a telegram proved capable of doing; I think it is fair to say that it can't be held responsible for starting any wars.

That has to be some joke.

No, no...

It is always large, powerful states that start wars, because they believe they have something to gain from them..
They sometimes use small states as an excuse, that's all!

WW1--Serbia started it..a small state......
WW1 directly leads to WW2 due to Germany loosing land, they want it back(like Danzig from Poland..Danzig was a German City but they lost it in WW1....when Hitler demanded Danzig back Poland Refused, causing Hitler to Declare war on Poland which ignited World War 2

World War I was not exactly Serbia's fault . . . nor was World War II Poland's fault. (Not that they were "small" anyways.)

What war did Luxembourg start?



The United States had no Allies in the war. :)

This does not change the fact that it was the Austro-Hungarian ultamatum that started the war.



:shakes head: Not going to even bother explaining this one.



And what about the big ones, like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, or Brazil?



I agree.



That's like saying it's the murdered's fault the murderer shot him.

#1 Im not foucsing on the BIG COUNTRIES in this thread..if you read the title it is specificly talking about the SMALL COUNTRIES..
#2 I never said Luxembourg started a war.....you really should read better...I said quote-Throughout history small independent nations have been allowed to exist..like in Europe Belgium Luxembourg Netherlands Serbia and such...While I have nothing against this..doesn't it seem that the protection of these states (or nations) independence has lead to major wars

In other words in that paragraph im just stating small independent states have been allowed to exist and at times have lead to wars(i never stated specificly Luxembourg..i just used them as an example for a small independent nation that has been allowed to exist)


Please read b4 posting kk thx

Define "large" and "small" countries.

Brazil and Indonesia are among the world's most populous, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia are far from dots on the map. While I wouldn't call Egypt a "large" country, it is certainly not a small one. Yet all of them proved to be major tools for either the United States or the Soviet Union during the Cold War, so your examples of Cuba and South Korea as being typical Cold War pawns are false.

You admit even in this post that your rule does not always hold true, and is only true of certain situations. There is no correlation between the existence of small countries, and the wars that somehow come to involve them; least of all is it their fault, unless they deliberately instigate the conflict.

Your posts would be much easier to read if they were written in a coherent fashion.

Schleswig-Holstein was a very small country and the infamous Schleswig-Holstein Question started a couple of wars.

Although like all the others it was really a war between powers over power politics.

Define "large" and "small" countries.

Brazil and Indonesia are among the world's most populous, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia are far from dots on the map. While I wouldn't call Egypt a "large" country, it is certainly not a small one. Yet all of them proved to be major tools for either the United States or the Soviet Union during the Cold War, so your examples of Cuba and South Korea as being typical Cold War pawns are false.

You admit even in this post that your rule does not always hold true, and is only true of certain situations. There is no correlation between the existence of small countries, and the wars that somehow come to involve them; least of all is it their fault, unless they deliberately instigate the conflict.

Your posts would be much easier to read if they were written in a coherent fashion.
Ya I should have been more clear-Small as in Largely unimportant in world polotics..not a major nation in the world...cuz Germany is small yet its strong..so ya I should have said I ment small in influence wise

If they are causing major wars they are hardly small in influence.

No one actually thinks WW2 was about Poland, do they?

No one actually thinks WW2 was about Poland, do they?
It sure as hell started that way. One line of thinking that has not yet been discredited goes that, had Poland not opposed Hitler's attempt to annex Danzig as he had Memel, that Germany would have retained the NAP with them for some time.

Small states are pawns in a chess game. And you start a chess game with a pawn.

No you don't. Plenty of openings start with a knight.

Hmm....well it looks like Georgia just started a war, so maybe there's some credence to this. Hah.

Ya I should have been more clear-Small as in Largely unimportant in world polotics..not a major nation in the world...cuz Germany is small yet its strong..so ya I should have said I ment small in influence wise

What, so you think the Netherlands have been unimportant in world politics?

If they are causing major wars they are hardly small in influence.

Right! This thread started out daft and has gone completely incoherent.

Small states don't start world wars. What they do is provide an arena for the big international players to mess around. Once enough nations view one state as 'within their sphere of influence' you get a war. Not always a military one, but that's what you get.

Hmm....well it looks like Georgia just started a war, so maybe there's some credence to this. Hah.

yep..like i said

What, so you think the Netherlands have been unimportant in world politics?



Right! This thread started out daft and has gone completely incoherent.

Did I ever mention the Netherlands? No
If your gonna quote me, at least use some sense

Did I ever mention the Netherlands? No
If your gonna quote me, at least use some sense

If you're going to post please use some sense.
If small countries as in your definition as "little influence on world affairs" cause huge wars then aren't they a big player on the world stage?

Did I ever mention the Netherlands? No
If your gonna quote me, at least use some sense

Must have been someone else who wrote the OP then:

Throughout history small independent nations have been allowed to exist..like in Europe Belgium Luxembourg Netherlands Serbia and such...

small states seem to cause more wars because there are more small states.

yep..like i said

Can't understand sarcasm can you? Frankly your position is foolishly simplistic. Your knowledge of the factors that lead to war are minimal.

World War I was not caused by Serbia. Even people in the Canadian school system learn that several of the causes can be attributed to nationalism, militarism, imperialism, arms race, and the alliance system. There's an extremely good article regarding WWI by Valkyras I suggest you look into it.

Furthermore the Georgian war is not simply caused by Georgia though they do indeed have a leading role. But it has a great deal to do with spheres of influences of the great powers, between Russia and NATO. Among other factors such as oil.

Also, small states are very rarely 'allowed to exist'. Many of them have fought long and hard for independence.

This is the stupidest statement for awhile.

Also, small states are very rarely 'allowed to exist'. Many of them have fought long and hard for independence.

Very true, assuming you mean real independence.

Currently they are usually created as part of power games between other, far more powerful states.

and here I thought this thread was about Rhode Island...

I can't believe that I am still reading this thread. I should be doing something more constructive, like playing Civ.

]
WW1-Serb rebels killed the Arch Duke of Austria-Hungary, starting WW1(ironiclly though it was American Allies(im american) who started the war..though we are made to belive it was Germany)

WRONG. America was NEUTRAL. they believed in the MONROE DOCTRINE

The United States planned to stay neutral in wars between European powers
Europe would leave the americas.

why would serbia be an american ally?

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY precipitated the war with an ultimatum against a sovereign state when a simple PERSON who was not part of the government assassinated the Archduke. Germany precipitated it by giving A-H full support for a war. Russia precipitated it by giving Serbia full support against A-H. but America had NO ROLE WHATSOEVER in this.

anyone else here worried that the georgian war might spiral out of control? I mean russia has already invaded pretty much ( if they do deny it). I see UN, and hopefully not NATO, intervention. But then we might just end up in a SECOND cold war.......

Won't happen. The US, Russia, and NATO have very little to gain over Georgia. The UN will talk big, and EU peacekeepers might be deployed, but no more than that. Everyone concerned has the good sense to try and avoid another cold war. The things that settled the first one would be dominant again anyway, so the 40 years of near hostility are right out.

This is the stupidest statement for awhile.

Unless you're referring to your statement, you mean, "That is the stupidest statement for awhile".