short essay about war

Essays About War: Top 5 Examples and 5 Prompts

War is atrocious and there is an almost universal rule that we should be prevented; if you are writing essays about war, read our helpful guide.

Throughout history, war has driven human progress. It has led to the dissolution of oppressive regimes and the founding of new democratic countries. There is no doubt that the world would not be as it is without the many wars waged in the past.

War is waged to achieve a nation or organization’s goals, but what is the actual cost of progress? War has taken, and continues to take, countless lives. It is and is very costly in terms of resources as well. From the American Revolution to World Wars I and II to the Crusades and Hundred Years’ War of antiquity, wars throughout history have been bloody, brutal, and disastrous. 

If you are writing essays about war, look at our top essay examples below.

1. War Is Not Part of Human Nature by R. Brian Ferguson

2. essay on war and peace (author unknown), 3. the impacts of war on global health by sarah moore.

• 4.  The Psychosocial Impacts of War and Armed Conflict on Children by Iman Farajallah, Omar Reda, H. Steven Moffic, John R. Peteet, and Ahmed Hankir

5. ​​Is war a pre-requisite for peace? by Anna Cleary

5 prompts for essays about war, 1. is war justified, 2. why do countries go to war, 3. the effects of war, 4. moral and ethical issues concerning war, 5. reflecting on a historical war.

“Debate over war and human nature will not soon be resolved. The idea that intensive, high-casualty violence was ubiquitous throughout prehistory has many backers. It has cultural resonance for those who are sure that we as a species naturally tilt toward war. As my mother would say: “Just look at history!” But doves have the upper hand when all the evidence is considered. Broadly, early finds provide little if any evidence suggesting war was a fact of life.”

Ferguson disputes the popular belief that war is inherent to human nature, as evidenced by archaeological discoveries. Many archaeologists use the very same evidence to support the opposing view. Evidence reveals many instances where war was waged, but not fought. In the minds of Ferguson and many others, humanity may be predisposed to conflict and violence, but not war, as many believe. 

“It also appears that if peace were to continue for a long period, people would become sick of the monotony of life and would seek war for a changed man is a highly dynamic creature and it seems that he cannot remain contented merely with works of peace-the cultivation of arts, the development of material comforts, the extension of knowledge, the means and appliances of a happy life.”

This essay provides an interesting perspective on war; other than the typical motivations for war, such as the desire to achieve one’s goals; the author writes that war disrupts the monotony of peace and gives participants a sense of excitement and uncertainty. In addition, it instills the spirit of heroism and bravery in people. However, the author does not dispute that war is evil and should be avoided as much as possible. 

“War forces people to flee their homes in search of safety, with the latest figures from the UN estimating that around 70 million people are currently displaced due to war. This displacement can be incredibly detrimental to health, with no safe and consistent place to sleep, wash, and shelter from the elements. It also removes a regular source of food and proper nutrition. As well as impacting physical health, war adversely affects the mental health of both those actively involved in conflict and civilians.”

Moore discusses the side effects that war has on civilians. For example, it diverts resources used on poverty alleviation and infrastructure towards fighting. It also displaces civilians when their homes are destroyed, reduces access to food, water, and sanitation, and can significantly impact mental health, among many other effects. 

4.   The Psychosocial Impacts of War and Armed Conflict on Children by Iman Farajallah, Omar Reda, H. Steven Moffic, John R. Peteet, and Ahmed Hankir

“The damage done by war-related trauma can never be undone. We can, however, help reduce its long-term impacts, which can span generations. When we reach within ourselves to discover our humanity, it allows us to reach out to the innocent children and remind them of their resilience and beauty. Trauma can make or break us as individuals, families, and communities.”

In their essay, the authors explain how war can affect children. Children living in war-torn areas expectedly witness a lot of violence, including the killings of their loved ones. This may lead to the inability to sleep properly, difficulty performing daily functions, and a speech impediment. The authors write that trauma cannot be undone and can ruin a child’s life.  

“The sociologist Charles Tilly has argued that war and the nation state are inextricably linked. War has been crucial for the formation of the nation state, and remains crucial for its continuation. Anthony Giddens similarly views a link between the internal pacification of states and their external violence. It may be that, if we want a durable peace, a peace built on something other than war, we need to consider how to construct societies based on something other than the nation state and its monopoly of violence.”

This essay discusses the irony that war is waged to achieve peace. Many justify war and believe it is inevitable, as the world seems to balance out an era of peace with another war. However, others advocate for total pacifism. Even in relatively peaceful times, organizations and countries have been carrying out “shadow wars” or engaging in conflict without necessarily going into outright war. Cleary cites arguments made that for peace to indeed exist by itself, societies must not be built on the war in the first place. 

Many believe that war is justified by providing a means to peace and prosperity. Do you agree with this statement? If so, to what extent? What would you consider “too much” for war to be unjustified? In your essay, respond to these questions and reflect on the nature and morality of war. 

Wars throughout history have been waged for various reasons, including geographical domination, and disagreement over cultural and religious beliefs. In your essay, discuss some of the reasons different countries go to war, you can look into the belief systems that cause disagreements, oppression of people, and leaders’ desire to conquer geographical land. For an interesting essay, look to history and the reasons why major wars such as WWI and WWII occurred.

In this essay, you can write about war’s effects on participating countries. You can focus on the impact of war on specific sectors, such as healthcare or the economy. In your mind, do they outweigh the benefits? Discuss the positive and negative effects of war in your essay. To create an argumentative essay, you can pick a stance if you are for or against war. Then, argue your case and show how its effects are positive, negative, or both.

Many issues arise when waging war, such as the treatment of civilians as “collateral damage,” keeping secrets from the public, and torturing prisoners. For your essay, choose an issue that may arise when fighting a war and determine whether or not it is genuinely “unforgivable” or “unacceptable.” Are there instances where it is justified? Be sure to examples where this issue has arisen before.

Humans have fought countless wars throughout history. Choose one significant war and briefly explain its causes, major events, and effects. Conduct thorough research into the period of war and the political, social, and economic effects occurred. Discuss these points for a compelling cause and effect essay.

For help with this topic, read our guide explaining “what is persuasive writing ?”If you still need help, our guide to grammar and punctuation explains more.

Martin is an avid writer specializing in editing and proofreading. He also enjoys literary analysis and writing about food and travel.

View all posts

Essay on War and Peace

Students are often asked to write an essay on War and Peace in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on War and Peace

Understanding war and peace.

War and peace are two sides of the same coin, representing conflict and harmony respectively. War often arises from disagreements, leading to violence and destruction. On the other hand, peace symbolizes tranquility, unity, and cooperation.

The Impact of War

War can cause immense suffering and loss. It destroys homes, breaks families, and causes physical and emotional pain. Moreover, it can lead to economic instability and environmental damage, affecting future generations.

The Importance of Peace

Peace is essential for the well-being of individuals and societies. It fosters growth, prosperity, and happiness. Peace encourages dialogue, understanding, and mutual respect, helping to resolve conflicts peacefully.

250 Words Essay on War and Peace

Introduction.

War and peace, two contrasting states, have shaped human civilization, politics, and cultural identity. The dichotomy between these two conditions is not merely a matter of physical conflict or tranquility but extends to philosophical, psychological, and ethical dimensions.

War: A Double-Edged Sword

War, often perceived as destructive, has paradoxically been a catalyst for some societal advancements. Technological innovations, political shifts, and social change have all been byproducts of war. However, the cost of these “benefits” is immense, leading to loss of life, displacement, and socioeconomic upheavals.

The Necessity of Peace

Peace, on the other hand, is a state of harmony and cooperation, conducive to prosperity, growth, and human development. It fosters an environment where creativity, innovation, and collaboration can thrive. Peace is not merely the absence of war but also the presence of justice and equality, which are fundamental for sustainable development.

Striking a Balance

The challenge lies in striking a balance between the pursuit of peace and the inevitability of war. This balance is not about accepting war as a necessary evil, but about understanding its causes and working towards preventing them. Peacebuilding efforts should focus on addressing root causes of conflict, like inequality and injustice, and promoting dialogue, understanding, and cooperation.

In conclusion, the complex relationship between war and peace is a reflection of the human condition. Striving for peace while understanding the realities of war is a delicate but necessary balance we must achieve. It is through this equilibrium that we can hope to progress as a society, ensuring a better future for generations to come.

500 Words Essay on War and Peace

War and peace are two polar opposites, yet they are inextricably linked in the complex tapestry of human history. They represent the dual nature of humanity: our capacity for both destruction and harmony. This essay explores the intricate relationship between war and peace, the impacts they have on societies, and the philosophical perspectives that underpin both.

The Dualism of War and Peace

War and peace are not merely states of conflict and tranquility, but rather manifestations of human nature and societal structures. War, in its essence, is a reflection of our primal instincts for survival, dominance, and territoriality. It exposes the darker side of humanity, where violence and power struggles prevail. Conversely, peace symbolizes our capacity for cooperation, empathy, and mutual understanding. It showcases the brighter side of humanity, where dialogue and diplomacy reign.

Impacts of War and Peace

The impacts of war and peace are profound and far-reaching. War, while destructive, has often catalyzed technological advancement and societal change. The World Wars, for instance, led to the development of nuclear technology and the establishment of international bodies like the United Nations. However, the cost of war is immense, leading to loss of life, economic devastation, and psychological trauma.

On the other hand, peace allows societies to flourish. It fosters economic growth, social development, and cultural exchange. Yet, peace is not merely the absence of war. It requires active effort to maintain social justice, equality, and mutual respect among diverse groups.

Philosophical Perspectives

War and peace have been subjects of philosophical debate for centuries. Realists argue that war is an inevitable part of human nature and international relations, while idealists contend that peace can be achieved through international cooperation and diplomacy.

Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes viewed humans as naturally combative, necessitating strong governance to maintain peace. Conversely, Immanuel Kant argued for ‘Perpetual Peace’ through democratic governance and international cooperation. These differing viewpoints reflect the complexity of war and peace, and the ongoing struggle to reconcile our violent instincts with our aspirations for a peaceful world.

In conclusion, war and peace are multifaceted concepts that reveal much about the human condition. Understanding their dynamics is crucial to shaping a world that leans towards peace, even as it acknowledges the realities of war. The challenge lies in mitigating the triggers of war and nurturing the conditions for peace. It is a task that requires not just political and diplomatic effort, but also a deep introspection into our collective values and aspirations.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on War and Its Effects
• Essay on Kargil War
• Essay on Disadvantages of War

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Essay on War and Peace

No doubt war is an evil, the greatest catastrophe that befalls human beings. It brings death and destruction, disease and starvation, poverty, and ruin in its wake.

One has only to look back to the havoc that was wrought in various countries not many years ago, in order to estimate the destructive effects of war. A particularly disturbing side of modern wars is that they tend to become global so that they may engulf the entire world.

But there are people who consider war as something grand and heroic and regard it as something that brings out the best in men, but this does not alter the fact that war is a terrible, dreadful calamity.

This is especially so now that a war will now be fought with atom bombs. Some people say war is necessary. A glance at the past history will tell that war has been a recurrent phenomenon in the history of nation.

No period in world history has been the devastating effects of war. We have had wars of all types long and short. In view of this it seems futile to talk of permanent and everlasting peace or to make plans for the establishment of eternal peace.

We have had advocates of non violence and the theory of the brotherhood of man. We have had the Buddha, Christ and Mahatma Gandhi. But in spite of that, weapons have always been used, military force has always been employed, clashes of arms have always occurred; war has always been waged.

War has indeed been such a marked feature of every age and period that it has come to be regarded As part of the normal life of nations. Machiavelli, the author of the known book, The Prince, defined peace as an interval between two wars Molise, the famous German field marshal declared war to be part of God’s world order.

Poets and prophets have dreamt of a millennium, a utopia in which war will not exist and eternal peace will reign on earth. But these dreams have not been fulfilled. After the Great War of 1914-18, it was thought that there would be no war for a long time to come and an institution called the League of Nations was founded as a safeguard against the outbreak of war.

The occurrence of another war (1939-45), however, conclusively proved that to think of an unbroken peace is to be unrealistic And that no institution or assembly can ever ensure the permanence of peace.

The League of Nations collapsed completely under the tensions and stresses created by Hitler. The United Nations Organization with all the good work that It has been doing is not proving as effective as was desired.

Large numbers of Wars, the most recent ones being the one in Vietnam, the other between India and Pakistan, or indo-china War, Iran-Iraq war or Arab Israel war, have been fought despite the UN. The fact of the matter is that fighting in a natural instinct in man.

When individuals cannot live always in peace, it is, indeed, too much to expect so many nations to live in a state of Eternal peace. Besides, there will always be wide differences of opinion between various nation, different angles of looking at matters that have international importance, radical difference in policy and ideology and these cannot be settled by mere discussions.

So resort to war becomes necessary in such circumstances. Before the outbreak of World War II, for instance, the spread of Communism in Russia created distrust and suspicion in Europe, democracy was an eyesore to Nazi Germany, British Conservatives were apprehensive of the possibility of Britain going Communist.

In short, the political ideology of one country being abhorrent to other times were certainly not conducive to the continuance of peace. Add to all this the traditional enemities between nations and international disharmony that have their roots in past history.

For example, Germany wished to avenge the humiliating terms imposed upon her at the conclusion of the war of 1914-18 and desired to smash the British Empire and establish an empire of her own. Past wounds, in fact, were not healed up and goaded it to take revenge.

A feverish arms race was going on between the hostile nations in anticipation of such an eventuality, and disarmament efforts were proving futile. The Indo-Pakistan war was fought over the Kashmir issue.

The war in Vietnam Was due to ideological differences. It also appears that if peace were to continue for a long period, people would become sick of the monotony of life and would seek war for a changed man is a highly dynamic creature and it seems that he cannot remain contented merely with works of peace-the cultivation of arts, the development of material comforts, the extension of knowledge, the means and appliances of a happy life.

He wants something thrilling and full of excitement and he fights in order to get an outlet for his accumulated energy. It must be admitted, too, that war Has its good side. It spurs men to heroism and self-sacrifice. It is an incentive to scientific research and development. War is obviously an escape from the lethargy of peace.

Related Posts:

• An Ode to Death by Daud Kamal Poem Summary, Notes and Line by Line Explanation in English
• Random Disease Generator [Fake & Real]
• Random University Name Generator
• Random Compound Word Generator
• Random Phrasal Verb Generator

How to Write War Essay: Russia Ukraine War

Understanding the Purpose and Scope of a War Essay

A condition of armed conflict between nations or between groups living in one nation is known as war. Sounds not like much fun, does it? Well, conflicts have been a part of human history for thousands of years, and as industry and technology have developed, they have grown more devastating. As awful as it might seem, a war typically occurs between a country or group of countries against a rival country to attain a goal through force. Civil and revolutionary wars are examples of internal conflicts that can occur inside a nation.

Your history class could ask you to write a war essay, or you might be personally interested in learning more about conflicts, in which case you might want to learn how to write an academic essay about war. In any scenario, we have gathered valuable guidance on how to organize war essays. Let's first examine the potential reasons for a conflict before moving on to the outline for a war essay.

• Economic Gain - A country's desire to seize control of another country's resources frequently starts conflicts. Even when the proclaimed goal of a war is portrayed to the public as something more admirable, most wars have an economic motivation at their core, regardless of any other possible causes.
• Territorial Gain - A nation may determine that it requires additional land for habitation, agriculture, or other uses. Additionally, the territory might serve as buffer zones between two violent foes.
• Religion - Religious disputes can stem from extremely profound issues. They may go dormant for many years before suddenly resurfacing later.
• Nationalism - In this sense, nationalism simply refers to the act of violently subjugating another country to demonstrate the country's superiority. This frequently manifests as an invasion.
• Revenge - Warfare can frequently be motivated by the desire to punish, make up for, or simply exact revenge for perceived wrongdoing. Revenge has a connection to nationalism as well because when a nation has been wronged, its citizens are inspired by patriotism and zeal to take action.
• Defensive War - In today's world, when military aggression is being questioned, governments will frequently claim that they are fighting in a solely protective manner against a rival or prospective aggressor and that their conflict is thus a 'just' conflict. These defensive conflicts may be especially contentious when conducted proactively, with the basic premise being that we are striking them before they strike us.

How to Write War Essay with a War Essay Outline

Just like in compare and contrast examples and any other forms of writing, an outline for a war essay assists you in organizing your research and creating a good flow. In general, you keep to the traditional three-part essay style, but you can adapt it as needed based on the length and criteria of your school. When planning your war paper, consider the following outline:

Introduction

• Definition of war
• Importance of studying wars
• Thesis statement

Body Paragraphs

• Causes of the War
• Political reasons
• Economic reasons
• Social reasons
• Historical reasons
• Major Players in the War
• Countries and their leaders
• Military leaders
• Allies and enemies
• Strategies and Tactics
• Military tactics and techniques
• Strategic planning
• Weapons and technology
• Impact of the War
• On the countries involved
• On civilians and non-combatants
• On the world as a whole
• Summary of the main points
• Final thoughts on the war
• Suggestions for future research

If you found this outline template helpful, you can also use our physics help for further perfecting your academic assignments.

Begin With a Relevant Hook

A hook should be the focal point of the entire essay. A good hook for an essay on war can be an interesting statement, an emotional appeal, a thoughtful question, or a surprising fact or figure. It engages your audience and leaves them hungry for more information.

Follow Your Outline

An outline is the single most important organizational tool for essay writing. It allows the writer to visualize the overall structure of the essay and focus on the flow of information. The specifics of your outline depend on the type of essay you are writing. For example, some should focus on statistics and pure numbers, while others should dedicate more space to abstract arguments.

How to Discuss Tragedy, Loss, and Sentiment

War essays are particularly difficult to write because of the terrible nature of war. The life is destroyed, the loved ones lost, fighting, death, great many massacres and violence overwhelm, and hatred for the evil enemy, amongst other tragedies, make emotions run hot, which is why sensitivity is so important. Depending on the essay's purpose, there are different ways to deal with tragedy and sentiment.

The easiest one is to stick with objective data rather than deal with the personal experiences of those who may have been affected by these events. It can be hard to remain impartial, especially when writing about recent deaths and destruction. But it is your duty as a researcher to do so.

However, it’s not always possible to avoid these issues entirely. When you are forced to tackle them head-on, you should always be considerate and avoid passing swift and sweeping judgment.

Summing Up Your Writing

When you have finished presenting your case, you should finish it off with some sort of lesson it teaches us. Armed conflict is a major part of human nature yet. By analyzing the events that transpired, you should be able to make a compelling argument about the scale of the damage the war caused, as well as how to prevent it in the future.

Tired of Looming Deadlines?

Get the help you need from our expert writers to ace your next assignment!

Popular War Essay Topics

When choosing a topic for an essay about war, it is best to begin with the most well-known conflicts because they are thoroughly recorded. These can include the Cold War or World War II. You might also choose current wars, such as the Syrian Civil War or the Russia and Ukraine war. Because they occur in the backdrop of your time and place, such occurrences may be simpler to grasp and research.

To help you decide which war to write about, we have compiled some facts about several conflicts that will help you get off to a strong start.

Russia Ukraine War

Russian President Vladimir Putin started the Russian invasion in the early hours of February 24 last year. According to him. the Ukrainian government had been committing genocide against Russian-speaking residents in the eastern Ukraine - Donbas region since 2014, calling the onslaught a 'special military operation.'

The Russian president further connected the assault to the NATO transatlantic military alliance commanded by the United States. He said the Russian military was determined to stop NATO from moving farther east and establishing a military presence in Ukraine, a part of the Soviet Union, until its fall in 1991.

All of Russia's justifications have been rejected by Ukraine and its ally Western Countries. Russia asserted its measures were defensive, while Ukraine declared an emergency and enacted martial law. According to the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the administration's objective is not only to repel offensives but also to reclaim all Ukrainian land that the Russian Federation has taken, including Crimea.

Both sides of the conflict accuse the other of deploying indiscriminate force, which has resulted in many civilian deaths and displacements. According to current Ukraine news, due to the difficulty of counting the deceased due to ongoing combat, the death toll is likely far higher. In addition, countless Ukrainian refugees were compelled to leave their homeland in search of safety and stability abroad.

Diplomatic talks have been employed to try to end the Ukraine-Russia war. Several rounds of conversations have taken place in various places. However, the conflict is still raging as of April 2023, and there is no sign of a truce.

World War II

World War II raged from 1939 until 1945. Most of the world's superpowers took part in the conflict, fought between two military alliances headed by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, and the Axis Powers, led by Germany, Italy, and Japan.

If you'd like to explore it more in-depth, consider using our history essay service for a World War 2 essay pdf sample!

After World War II, a persistent political conflict between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their allies became known as the Cold War. It's hard to say who was to blame for the cold war essay. American citizens have long harbored concerns about Soviet communism and expressed alarm over Joseph Stalin's brutal control of his own nation. On their side, the Soviets were angry at the Americans for delaying their participation in World War II, which led to the deaths of tens of millions of Russians, and for America's long-standing unwillingness to recognize the USSR as a genuine member of the world community.

Vietnam War

If you're thinking about writing the Vietnam War essay, you should know that it was a protracted military battle that lasted in Vietnam from 1955 to 1975. The North Vietnamese communist government fought South Vietnam and its main ally, the United States, in the lengthy, expensive, and contentious Vietnam War. The ongoing Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union exacerbated the issue. The Vietnam War claimed the lives of more than 3 million individuals, more than half of whom were Vietnamese civilians.

American Civil War

Consider writing an American Civil War essay where the Confederate States of America, a grouping of eleven southern states that seceded from the Union in 1860 and 1861, and the United States of America battled each other. If you're wondering what caused the civil war, you should know that the long-standing dispute about the legitimacy of slavery is largely responsible for how the war started.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

After over a century, the Israel-Palestine conflict has evolved into one of the most significant and current problems in the Middle East. A war that has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people destroyed their homes and gave rise to terrorist organizations that still hold the region hostage. Simply described, it is a conflict between two groups of people for ownership of the same piece of land. One already resided there, while the other was compelled to immigrate to this country owing to rising antisemitism and later settled there. For Israelis and Palestinians alike, as well as for the larger area, the war continues to have substantial political, social, and economic repercussions.

The Syrian Civil War

Pro-democracy protests broke out in southern Deraa in March 2011 due to upheavals against oppressive leaders in neighboring nations. When the Syrian government employed lethal force to quell the unrest, widespread protests calling for the president's resignation broke out.

The country entered a civil war as the violence quickly increased. After hundreds of rebel organizations emerged, the fight quickly expanded beyond a confrontation between Syrians supporting or opposing Mr. Assad. Everyone believes a political solution is necessary, even though it doesn't seem like it will soon.

Russia-Ukraine War Essay Sample

With the Russian-Ukrainian war essay sample provided below from our paper writing experts, you can gain more insight into structuring a flawless paper.

Why is there a war between Russia and Ukraine?

Final Words

To understand our past and the present, we must study conflicts since they are a product of human nature and civilization. Our graduate essay writing service can produce any kind of essay you want, whether it is about World War II, the Cold War, or another conflict. Send us your specifications with your ' write my essay ' request, and let our skilled writers help you wow your professor!

Having Hard Time Writing on Wars?

From the causes and consequences of wars to the strategies and tactics used in battle, our team of expert writers can provide you with a high-quality essay!

Related Articles

Subscribe to our newsletter

35 great articles about war, war reporting, m by john sack, blackhawk down by mark bowden, hiroshima by john hersey, the vietnam syndrome by christopher hitchens, the coldest war by kevin fedarko, the chaos company by william langewiesche, an extraordinarily expensive way to fight isis by william langwiesche, how to deal with north korea by mark bowden, war stories, the things they carried by tim o'brien, warfighter by wil s. hylton, the most amazing lie in history by lucas reilly, ghost soldiers by hampton sides, the yankee comandante by david grann, paintballing with hezbollah by mitchell prothero, recruiting for the big parade by terry southern, you have thousands of angels around you by paige williams, the kabul-ki dance by mark bowden, the expendables by william langewiesche, the distant executioner by william langewiesche, the last ace by mark bowden, the professor of war by mark bowden, documentaries, the fog of war, see also..., 60 great articles about politics, 10 great articles about evil, a history of violence by steven pinker, inside monopoly's secret war against the third reich by christian donlan, silent war by michael joseph gross, a farewell to arms by john carlin, who was behind the stuxnet attack by ron rosenbaum, spectrum warfare by brendan koerner, the killer elite by evan wright, war without end by c. j. chivers, how one u.s. soldier blew the whistle on a cold-blooded war crime by william langwiesche, the rip-off in iraq by matt taibbi, the city of broken men by devin friedman, tuesdays with saddam by lisa depaulo, welcome to the green zone by william langewiesche, the ploy by mark bowden, dispatches by michael herr, black hawk down by mark bowden, generation kill by evan wright, the good war by studs terkel.

About The Electric Typewriter We search the net to bring you the best nonfiction, articles, essays and journalism

First World War: Causes and Effects Essay

Introduction, the causes of world war one, the effects of the war.

World War one seems like an ancient history with many cases of compelling wars to many people, but amazingly, it became known as the Great War because of influence it caused. It took place across European colonies and their surrounding seas between August 1914 and December 1918 (Tuchman, 2004). Almost sixty million troops mobilized for the war ended up in crippling situations.

For instance, more than eight million died and over thirty million people injured in the struggle. The war considerably evolved with the economic, political, cultural and social nature of Europe. Nations from the other continents also joined the war making it worse than it was.

Over a long period, most countries in Europe made joint defense treaties that would help them in battle if the need arose. This was for defense purposes. For instance, Russia linked with Serbia, Germany with Austria-Hungary, France with Russia, and Japan with Britain (Tuchman, 2004).

The war started with the declaration of war on Serbia by Austria-Hungary. This later led to the entry of countries allied to Serbia into the war so as to protect their partners.

Imperialism is another factor that led to the First World War. Many European countries found expansion of their territories enticing.

Before World War One, most European countries considered parts of Asia and Africa as their property because they were highly productive. European nations ended up in confrontations among themselves due to their desire for more wealth from Africa and Asia. This geared the whole world into war afterwards.

Competition to produce more weapons compared to other countries also contributed to the beginning of World War One. Many of the European nations established themselves well in terms of military capacity and eventually sought for war to prove their competence.

Desire for nationalism by the Serbians also played a crucial role in fueling the war. Failure to come to an agreement about Bosnia and Herzegovina led the countries to war. Both countries wanted to prove their supremacy.

Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife in Austria-Hungary sparked the war. Tuchman (2004) reveals that the Serbians assassinated Ferdinand in Sarajevo in June 1914 while protesting to the control of Sarajevo by Austria-Hungary. The assassination led to war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. This led to mobilization of Russian troops in preparation for war.

The already prepared Germany immediately joined the war against Russia and France. On the other hand, Russians declared war on Austria and Germany. The invasion of the neutral Belgium by Germany triggered Britain to declare war against Germans.

Earlier, Britain had promised to defend Belgium against any attack. The British entered France with the intention of stopping the advancement of Germany. This intensified the enmity among the countries involved (Tuchman, 2004).

Tuchman (2004) argues that the French together with their weak allies held off the fighting in Paris and adopted trench warfare. The French had decided to defend themselves from the trenches instead of attacking. This eventually gave them the victory.

Although The British had the largest number of fleet in the world by the end of 1914, they could not end the First World War. The Germans had acquired a well-equipped fleet. This helped them advance the war to 1915. However, many countries participating in the war began to prepare for withdrawal from the conflict. The war had changed the social roles in many of the countries involved.

For instance, women in Britain performed duties initially considered masculine so as to increase their income (Tuchman, 2004). In the Western Front, the innovated gas weapons killed many people. In the Eastern Front, Bulgaria joined Austria-Hungary as the central power leading to more attacks in Serbia and Russia. Italy too joined the war and fought with the allied forces.

The British seized German ports in 1916. This led to severe shortage of food in Germany. The shortages encountered by the Germans led to food riots in many of the German towns. The Germans eventually adopted submarine warfare. With the help of this new tactic, they targeted Lusitania, one of the ships from America.

This led to the loss of many lives, including a hundred Americans, prompting America to join the war. On 1stJuly the same year, over twenty thousand people died and forty thousand injured. However, in the month of May the same year, the British managed to cripple the German fleet and eventually take control of the sea (Tuchman, 2004).

The year 1917 marked a remarkable change in Germany. Attempts to convince Mexico to invade the United States proved futile. Germany eventually lost due to lack of sufficient aid from their already worn-out allies. Towards the end of 1918, British food reserves became exhausted. This reduced the intensity of the warfare against Germans. It was in this same year that they established “Women Army Auxiliary Corps”.

It placed women on the forefront in the battlefield for the first time. On the Western Front, the Germans weakness eventually led to their defeat. The war came to an end. The British eventually emerged the superior nation among all the European nations.

The signing of the Treaty of Versailles on twenty eighth June 1919 between the Allied powers and Germany officially ended the war. Other treaties signed later contributed to the enforcement of peace among nations involved in the war (Tuchman, 2004).

First World War outlined the beginning of the modern era; it had an immense impact on the economic and political status of many countries. European countries crippled their economies while struggling to manufacture superior weapons. The Old Russian Empire replaced by a socialist system led to loss of millions of people.

The known Austro-Hungarian Empire and old Holy Roman Empire became extinct. The drawing of Middle East and Europe maps led to conflicts in the present time. The League of Nations formed later contributed significantly in solving international conflicts.

In Britain, a class system arose demarcating the lower class from the advantaged class whereas, in France the number of men significantly reduced (Tuchman, 2004). This led to sharing of the day to day tasks between men and women. First World War also caused the merger of cultures among nations. Poets and authors portray this well. Many people also ended up adopting the western culture and neglecting their own.

In conclusion, the First World War led to the loss of many lives. These included soldiers and innocent citizens of the countries at war. The First World War also led to extensive destruction of property. The infrastructure and buildings in many towns crumbled. It contributed to displacement of people from their homes. Many people eventually lost their land.

The loss of land and displacement of people has substantially contributed to the current conflicts among communities and nations. However, the First World War paved way to the establishment of organizations that ensured that peace prevailed in the world. It also led to the advancement of science and technology. It led to the realization that women too could perform masculine tasks.

Tuchman, W. B. (2004). The Guns of August : New York: Random House Publishing Group.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, April 19). First World War: Causes and Effects. https://ivypanda.com/essays/world-war-one-essay/

"First World War: Causes and Effects." IvyPanda , 19 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/world-war-one-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'First World War: Causes and Effects'. 19 April.

IvyPanda . 2022. "First World War: Causes and Effects." April 19, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/world-war-one-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "First World War: Causes and Effects." April 19, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/world-war-one-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "First World War: Causes and Effects." April 19, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/world-war-one-essay/.

• World War I as the Catastrophe of the 20th Century
• First World War Issues and Causes
• First World War: German and Austrian Policies' Response
• Was the birthplace of Canada at Vimy Rigde
• United States and World War I
• Why Europe Went to War
• WWI-War: Revolution, and Reconstruction
• World War I Technology

554 Words Short Essay on war: a blot on humanity

There is a common saying that war is never good, peace is never bad. But if we look back into the history of mankind, it will be cleared that there have been wars since prehistoric ages. Although attempts have been made to abolish it, success has not been achieved so far. Thus, eternal peace seems to be beyond our reach. There are people who justify wars and say that it is necessary because it is the law of nature.

They highlight their point by placing Charles Darwin at their front. It was he who established the principle of survival of the fittest. He told that there is a constant struggle for surrival in all nature, both animate and inanimate. In this struggle only those will succeed who are the fittest. Thus, war is held necessary without which there will be any development of humanity.

But such people forget that war always brings destruction on mass scale. They forget Mahatma Gandhi’s teaching of non-violence, following which he freed his motherland from the sackles of slavery. They forget that if Gandhi could oust the powerful Britishers by dint of non violence, why not others follow the same foot print.

Wars are necessary evils and their horrors are so many and of such magnitude that they cannot be described in words. We must not forget the horrors of the two world wars. In there wars, these was mass-killing and destruction of property. Thousands were made widows and orphans. War brings hatred and spreads falsehood. People become selfish and brutal. As a result humanity and morality suffers.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

War is the enemy of all humanity and human civilisation. Nothing good can be achieved out of it. Hence, it can never be glorified in any form. It not only hampers the development the nation but also uproots social cohesiveness. It slows down the pace of progress of mankind.

Wars are not the solution of the problems. Instead they generate problems and create hatred among nations. War can decide one issue but gives birth too many. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the greatest horrible faces of the consequence of wars. Even after 60 years people are suffering from the miseries of war. Whatever be the cause of war, it always results in destruction of life and property at large.

One obnoxious face of modern warfare is terrorism which targets the strongest of the strong and causes dangers beyond control of anyone. Terrorists do not discriminate between races, religion, and culture. They target only the humanity as a whole. Even the world’s super power, the USA remained helpless when its prestigious twin towers of the World Trade Centre were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001 with a well planned, well-co- ordinated and most massive suicide terrorist step. Indian Parliament was also attacked.

These terrorists did not leave the temples like Akshardham in Gujarat. These terrorist attacks are nothing but the misguided zeal of a few derailed members of our society. They work under some provocations which have no goals.

On the whole, war has always been the greatest blot on humanity. It was created by man himself but now it is beyond control of all human forces. Now it requires retrospection for the whole of human race to think over it for the sake of humanity, otherwise nothing will remain neither war nor humanity.

Related Articles:

• 450 Words Essay on disarmament: the only hope of humanity
• Sample essay on Scientists have done Great Harm to Humanity
• 562 Words Essay on science and war
• Short Paragraph on the concept of history repeats itself

Was it inevitable? A short history of Russia’s war on Ukraine

To understand the tragedy of this war, it is worth going back beyond the last few weeks and months, and even beyond Vladimir Putin

F or three months everyone argued about whether there would be a war, whether Vladimir Putin was bluffing or serious. Some of the Russia experts who had long told people to take it easy were now telling people to get worried. Others, who had long criticised Putin, said that he was just trying to draw attention to himself, that it was all for show. Among the analysts, there was a debate between the troop watchers and the TV watchers. The troop watchers saw the massive concentration of Russian forces at the border and in Crimea and warned of invasion. The TV watchers said that Russian TV was not ramping up war hysteria, as it usually does before a Russian invasion, and that this meant there would be no war.

The question was settled, for ever, on the night of 24 February, when Russian missiles hit military installations and civilian targets inside Ukraine , and Russian armoured convoys crossed the border. Then everyone began arguing about why. Was Putin crazy? Was he genuinely concerned about Nato expansion? Was he thinking in amoral categories – as longtime Putin scholar Fiona Hill suggested – that were fundamentally historical, along timescales that made no sense to ordinary mortals? Was he trying, bit by bit, to reconstruct the Russian Empire? Was Estonia next?

I had travelled to Moscow in January to see what I could learn. The city looked beautiful. Snow lay on the ground and everyone was very calm. Yes, repressions were ramping up, the space for political expression was narrowing, and many more people had died of Covid-19 than was officially acknowledged. And yes, speaking of Covid, Putin was paranoid about it, forcing anyone who wanted to see him in person to quarantine for one week in advance in a hotel the Kremlin had for that purpose. No one thought things were going in anything like the right direction, but none of the people I spoke to, some of them fairly well connected, thought an invasion was actually going to happen.

They thought Putin was engaged in coercive diplomacy. They thought the American intelligence community had lost its mind. I visited friends, listened to their reflections, gamed out the various scenarios. Even if an invasion did happen – a big if – it would be over quickly, we all agreed. It would be like Crimea: a precision operation, the use of overwhelming technological superiority. Putin had always been so cautious – the sort of person who never started a fight he wasn’t sure to win. It would be terrible, but relatively painless. That was wrong. We were all wrong.

That everyone was wrong did not prevent everyone from immediately claiming that, in fact, they’d been right. Russia experts who had been arguing for years that Putin was a bloody tyrant rushed forth to claim vindication, for he had undoubtedly become what they had claimed he was all along. Russia experts who had been arguing for years that we needed to heed Putin’s warnings could also claim vindication (though more quietly) because Putin had finally acted on those warnings. As usual, officials from US presidential administrations of yore were trotted out on TV as talking heads, dispensing their wisdom and accepting no responsibility, as if they had not all contributed, in one way or another, to the catastrophe.

This war was not inevitable, but we have been moving toward it for years: the west, and Russia, and Ukraine. The war itself is not new – it began, as Ukrainians have frequently reminded us in the past two weeks, with the Russian incursion in 2014. But the roots go back even further. We are still experiencing the death throes of the Soviet empire. We are reaping, too, in the west, the fruits of our failed policies in the region after the Soviet collapse.

This war was the decision of one person and one person only – Vladimir Putin. He made the call in his Covid isolation, failed to mount any sort of campaign to garner public support, and barely spoke to anyone outside the tiniest inner circle about it, which is why just a few weeks before the invasion no one in Moscow thought it was going to happen. Furthermore, he clearly misunderstood the nature of the political situation in Ukraine, and the vehemence of the resistance he would encounter. Nonetheless, to understand the tragedy of the war, and what it means for Ukraine and Russia and the rest of us, it is worth going back beyond the last few weeks and months, and even beyond Vladimir Putin. Things did not have to turn out this way, though where exactly we went wrong is much harder to determine.

1. The breakup: Russia and Ukraine after the fall of the USSR

T hirty years ago, as the countries of the former Soviet Union declared their independence, everyone breathed a sigh of relief that the empire disappeared so gently. Aside from a nasty irredentist conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the ethnic Armenian exclave of Nagorno-Karabakh , there was very little violence. But gradually, almost imperceptibly, conflict began appearing at the edges of the former USSR.

In Moldova, Russian troops supported a small separatist movement of Russian-speakers that eventually formed the tiny breakaway republic of Transnistria . In Georgia, the autonomous region of Abkhazia , also supported by Russian arms, fought a short war with the central government in Tbilisi, as did South Ossetia. Chechnya , a Russian republic that had fiercely resisted the encroachment of the empire throughout the 19th century, and which suffered terribly under Soviet rule, declared its own wish for independence, and was ground down in not one but two brutal wars. Tajikistan endured a civil war, in part a fallout from the civil war raging in Afghanistan, with which it shared a border. And on and on. In 2007, Russia launched a cyber-attack against Estonia, and in 2008, it responded to an attempt by Georgia to retake South Ossetia with a massive counter-offensive. Despite all this, it was still common for people to say that the dissolution of the Soviet Union had been miraculously peaceful. And then came Ukraine.

In the laboratory of nation-building that was the former empire, Ukraine stood out. Some of the Soviet former republics had longstanding political traditions and distinct linguistic, religious and cultural practices; others less so. The Baltic states had each been independent for two decades between the world wars. Most of the other republics had had, at best, a brief experiment with independence in the immediate wake of the collapse of tsarism in 1917. To complicate matters, many of the newfound nations had significant Russian-speaking populations who were either uninterested in or actively hostile toward their new national projects.

Ukraine was unique on all these fronts. Though it, too, had only existed as an independent state in modern times for a few short years, it had a powerful nationalist movement, a vibrant literary canon, and a strong memory of its independent place in the history of Europe before Peter the Great. It was very large – the second-largest country in Europe after Russia. It was industrialised, being a major producer of coal, steel and helicopter engines, as well as grain and sunflower seeds. It had a highly educated populace. And that populace at the time it became independent in 1991 numbered 52 million – second only to Russia among post-Soviet states. It was strategically located on the Black Sea and on the border with numerous eastern European states and future Nato members. It possessed what had once been the most beautiful beaches in the USSR, on the Crimean peninsula, where the Russian tsars had spent their summers, as well as the USSR’s largest warm water naval port, in Sevastopol. It had suffered greatly during the German advance into the Soviet Union in 1941 – of the 13 “hero cities” of the USSR, so called because they saw the heaviest fighting and raised the stoutest resistance, four were in Ukraine (Kyiv, Odesa, Kerch and Sevastopol). The economies of Russia and Ukraine were deeply intertwined. Ukrainian factories in Dnipropetrovsk were a vital part of the military-industrial capacity of the USSR, and Russia’s largest export gas pipelines ran through Ukraine. Strategically, in the words of historian Dominic Lieven, describing the situation circa the first world war, Ukraine could not have been more vital. “Without Ukraine’s population, industry and agriculture, early-20th-century Russia would have ceased to be a great power.” The same was true, or seemed to be true, in 1991.

Ukraine was not just geopolitically significant to Russia. It was culturally and historically, too. The Russian and Ukrainian languages had diverged sometime in the 13th century, and Ukraine had a distinct and notable literature, but the two remained close – about as close as Spanish and Portuguese. While most of the country was ethnically Ukrainian, there was, particularly in the east, a large ethnic Russian minority. Perhaps more important, while the official language was Ukrainian, the lingua franca in most of the large cities was Russian. And perhaps even more important than that, most people knew both languages. It was common on television to see a journalist, for example, ask a question in Russian and receive an answer in Ukrainian, or to have a panel of experts for a talent show with two Russian-language judges and two Ukrainian-language judges. It was a genuinely bilingual nation – a rare thing.

From a Russian nationalist perspective, that was a problem. Why speak two languages when you could just speak one? Crimea was a particularly sore spot: the vast majority of the population identified as Russian. And once you started thinking about Crimea, you then started thinking about eastern Ukraine. There were many Russians there. To be sure, there were also Russians in other places – in northern Kazakhstan, for example, and eastern Estonia. There were irredentist claims on these areas as well, and occasionally they flared up. The writer turned political provocateur Eduard Limonov , for example, was arrested in Moscow in 2001 for allegedly plotting to invade northern Kazakhstan and declare it an independent ethnic Russian republic. But no place held such a central part in the Russian historical imagination as Ukraine.

For the first 20 years of independence, Russia kept a very close eye on developments in Ukraine, and interfered in various ways, but that was as far as it went. That was as far as it needed to go. Ukraine’s large Russian-language population guaranteed, or seemed to guarantee, that the country would not stray too far from the Russian sphere of influence.

2. ‘Where does the motherland begin?’ The view from Ukraine

I n Ukraine itself, even aside from the Russian presence, there were the birth agonies of a nation. Many of the new post-Soviet countries had their share of problems – corrupt elites, restive ethnic minorities, a border with Russia. Ukraine had all this, and more. Because it was large and industrialised, there was plenty of it to steal. Because it had a major Black Sea port in the city of Odesa, there was an easily accessible seaway through which to steal it. As became clear in 2014, when it became time to use it, much of the equipment of the old Ukrainian army was smuggled out of the country through that port.

On top of this, Ukraine was, if not divided, then certainly not immediately recognisable as a unified whole. Because it had so many times been conquered and partitioned, the country’s historical memory itself was fractured. In the words of one historian , “Its different parts had different pasts.” To make things worse, one of the most treasured aspects of the political culture of Ukraine, historically – the legacy of the Cossack hetmanate of the 17th century – was anarchism. The original Cossacks were warriors who had escaped serfdom. Their political system was a radical democracy. There was something beautiful about this. But in terms of the construction of a modern state, it had its drawbacks. In a now-infamous CIA analysis written shortly after the creation of independent Ukraine, it was predicted that there was a good chance the country would fall apart.

And yet, for two decades, it didn’t. For better and worse, democracy was rooted deep in Ukrainian political culture, and so while in Russia power was never transferred to an opposition, in Ukraine it happened again and again. In 1994, the first president of Ukraine, Leonid Kravchuk, was voted out of office in favour of Leonid Kuchma, who promised better relations with Russia and to give the Russian language equal status in Ukraine. In 2004, his hand-picked successor, Viktor Yanukovych, was, after massive protests against a falsified election, voted out in favour of a more nationalist and pro-European candidate, Viktor Yushchenko. In 2010, Yushchenko proceeded to lose to a resurgent Yanukovych. But Yanukovych was thrown out of office by the Maidan revolution in 2014. A nationalist candidate and chocolate billionaire, Petro Poroshenko, became the next president, but he was replaced by Volodymyr Zelenskiy , a Russian-speaking pro-peace candidate, in 2019.

Ukrainian politics were full of conflict. Fist-fights in the Rada were common and protests were a fact of ordinary life. There were massive protests against Kuchma, for example, in 2000, when a recording surfaced of him apparently ordering the murder of the journalist Georgiy Gongadze , whose headless body had been found in the woods outside Kyiv. (Kuchma insisted the tapes were doctored. He was charged in 2011, but the prosecution was dropped after a court ruled the tapes inadmissible.) Yushchenko, the opposition candidate in 2004, barely survived a dioxin poisoning , which had all the markings of a Russian special operation. The initial round of voting in 2004 was marked by severe irregularities and clear voter fraud such as had not yet appeared in Russia. It took mass protests, known as the Orange Revolution, to win another round of voting, in which Yushchenko won. Yushchenko himself subsequently presided over a fair election in 2010, which he lost. And on and on.

These changes of power were alternately tumultuous and pedestrian, but they reflected genuine differences of opinion among the populace about what Ukraine should be. Some thought Ukraine should integrate further with Europe, others that it should remain friendly and closely connected with Russia. The cultural and historical differences between the different parts of Ukraine would surface in times of crisis.

For Russian speakers and Ukraine’s remaining Jewish population, the memory of the second world war, of resistance to Nazi invasion and occupation, remained an important touchstone. Ukrainian nationalists had a different perspective on these events. For some, the occupation of their country began in 1921 (when the Bolsheviks consolidated control of Ukraine) or 1939 (when Stalin took the last part of western Ukraine as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact between Germany and the USSR to carve up Poland), if not 1654, when the Cossack Hetmanate sought the protection of the Russian tsar. The famous wartime resistance fighters known as the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, who had opposed both Soviet and German occupation in western Ukraine, and who were seen as fascist villains by the Soviets, were, in the nationalist narrative, the George Washingtons of Ukrainian history. For nationalists, the signal tragedy of the 20th century was not the Nazi invasion, but instead the great famine of 1932-33, in which millions of Ukrainians died. It was known as the Holodomor – “murder by hunger” – and was consistently referred to as a deliberate act by Stalin (and by extension Russia) to destroy the Ukrainian nation.

All these arguments took place against a backdrop of economic stagnation. Ukraine’s economy was consistently one of the weakest in the former Soviet bloc. Corruption was endemic and living standards were low. Ukraine was dependent on cheap gas from Russia as well as the “transit fees” it charged for Russian gas going to Europe.

To Ukrainians living under these see-sawing politics, going from hope to disappointment and back again, with what seemed like a permanent elite merely trading the presidency back and forth between themselves, it felt like their lives were passing them by. A journalist I met in Kyiv in 2010, who had taken part in the protests that were part of the Orange Revolution and was then let down by Yuschenko’s presidency, lamented the missed opportunities. “All this while time is passing,” he said. He couldn’t believe how little had been done since 2005, and since 1991.

But there was another aspect to time passing. The more time passed, the more Ukraine’s fragile nationhood could coalesce. Because what did it mean to belong to a nation? Where, in the words of the famous Soviet song, does the motherland begin? It begins with the pictures in the first book your mother reads you, according to the song. And to your good and true friends from the courtyard next door. The more people who were born in Ukraine, rather than the USSR, the more people grew up thinking of Kyiv as their capital instead of Moscow, and the more they learned the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian history, the stronger Ukraine would become. Volodymyr Zelenskiy, in the TV show that made him famous in Ukraine and eventually catapulted him to the presidency, played a Russian-speaking high school history teacher who suddenly becomes president. In the brief scenes in which we see Zelenskiy’s character actually teaching, he is quizzing his students about the great Ukrainian national historian and politician Mykhailo Hrushevsky.

3. For Russia, Nato is a four-letter word

I t was violent Russian opposition to EU membership for Ukraine that in late 2013 precipitated the Maidan revolution, which in turn precipitated the Russian annexation of Crimea and incursion into eastern Ukraine. But after the end of the cold war, it was Nato expansion that had been the greatest irritant to the relationship between Russia and the west, a relationship that found Ukraine trapped in between.

Nato expansion proceeded very slowly, then seemingly all at once. In the immediate wake of the Soviet collapse, it was not a foregone conclusion that Nato would get bigger. In fact, most US policymakers, and the US military, opposed expanding the alliance. There was even talk, for a while, of disbanding Nato. It had served its purpose – to contain the Soviet Union – and now everyone could go their separate ways.

This changed in the early years of the Clinton administration. The motor for the change came from two directions. One was a group of idealistic foreign policy hands inside the Clinton national security council, and the other was the eastern European states.

After 1991, the post-communist countries of eastern Europe, particularly Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, found themselves in an uncertain security environment. Nearby Yugoslavia was falling apart, and they had their own potential border disputes. Most of all, though, they had a vivid memory of Russian imperialism. They did not believe Russia would remain weak for ever, and they wanted to align with Nato while they still could. “If you don’t let us into Nato, we’re getting nuclear weapons,” Polish officials told a team of thinktank researchers in 1993. “We don’t trust the Russians.”

In presenting their case, it did not hurt that the leaders of the eastern European countries had a great deal of moral credibility. It was after a meeting with, among others, Václav Havel and Lech Wałęsa in Prague in January 1994 that Bill Clinton announced that “the question is no longer whether Nato will take on new members but when.” This formulation – not whether, but when – became official US policy. Five years later, the Czech Republic (having peacefully divorced Slovakia), Hungary and Poland were inducted into Nato. In the years to come, 11 more countries would join, bringing the total number of countries in the alliance to 30.

During the recent crisis, some American pundits and policymakers have claimed that Russia did not object to Nato until quite recently, when it was searching for a pretext to invade Ukraine. The claim is genuinely ludicrous. Russia has been protesting Nato expansion since the very beginning. The Russian deputy foreign minister told Clinton’s top Russia hand Strobe Talbott in 1993 that “Nato is a four-letter word”. At a joint press conference with Clinton in 1994, Boris Yeltsin, to whom Clinton had been such a loyal ally, reacted with fury when he realised that Nato was actually moving ahead with its plans to include the eastern European states. He predicted that a “cold peace” in Europe would be the result.

Russia was too weak, and still too dependent on western loans, to do anything except complain and watch warily as Nato increased in power. The alliance’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999 was particularly disturbing to the Russian leadership. It was, first of all, an intervention in a situation that Russia viewed as an internal conflict. Kosovo was, at the time, part of Serbia. After the Nato intervention, it was, in effect, no longer part of Serbia. Meanwhile the Russians had their own Kosovo-like situation in Chechnya, and it suddenly seemed to them that it was not impossible that Nato could intervene in that situation as well. As one American analyst who studied the Russian military told me: “They got scared because they knew what the state of Russian conventional forces was. They saw what the actual state of US conventional forces was. And they saw that while they had a lot of problems in Chechnya with their own Muslim minority, the United States just intervened to basically break Kosovo off of Serbia.”

The next year, Russia officially changed its military doctrine to say that it could, if threatened, resort to the use of tactical nuclear weapons. One of the authors of the doctrine told the Russian military paper Krasnaya Zvezda that Nato’s eastward expansion was a threat to Russia and that this was the reason for the lowered threshold for the use of nuclear weapons. That was 22 years ago.

The second post-Soviet round of Nato expansion was the largest. Agreed to in 2002 and made official in 2004, it brought Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia into the alliance. Almost all these states were part of the Soviet bloc, and Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – the “Baltics” – were once part of the Soviet Union. Now they had joined the west.

As this was happening, a series of events shook up the Russian periphery. The “colour revolutions” – coming in quick succession in Georgia in 2003 (Rose), Ukraine in 2004 (Orange) and Kyrgyzstan in 2005 (Tulip) – all used mass protests to eject corrupt pro-Russian incumbents. These events were greeted with great enthusiasm in the west as a reawakening of democracy, and with scepticism and trepidation in the Kremlin as an encroachment on Russian space. In the US, policymakers celebrated that freedom was on the march. In Moscow, there was a slightly paranoid concern that the colour revolutions were the work of the western secret services, and that Russia was next.

The Kremlin might not have been right about a long-range western plot, but they weren’t wrong to think that the west never saw it as an equal, as a peer. The fact is that at every turn, at every sticking point, in every situation, the west, and the US in particular, did what it wanted to do. It was, at times, exquisitely sensitive to Russian perceptions; at other times, cavalier. But in all cases the US just pressed ahead. Eventually this just became the way things were. Relations between the two sides soured, and positions hardened. In 2006, Dick Cheney gave an aggressive speech in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, in which he celebrated the achievements of the Baltic nations. “The system that has brought such great hope to the shores of the Baltic can bring the same hope to the far shores of the Black Sea, and beyond,” he said. “What is true in Vilnius is also true in Tbilisi and Kyiv, and true in Minsk, and true in Moscow.” As Samuel Charap and Timothy Colton note in their excellent short history of the 2014 Ukraine conflict, Everyone Loses, “One can only conjecture the reaction to such statements in the Kremlin.”

A year later, at the 2007 Munich Security Conference, in what is widely considered a key turning point in relations between Russia and the west, Putin delivered his response, assailing the US and its unipolar system for its arrogance, its flouting of international law, and its hypocrisy. “We are constantly being taught about democracy,” he said of Russia. “But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.”

The warning was heard, but not heeded. In April 2008, in Bucharest, Nato countries met and delivered a promise that Georgia and Ukraine “will become members of Nato”. It was, as many have since noted, the worst of both worlds: a promise of membership without any of the actual benefits, in the form of security guarantees, that membership would bring. A few months later, in what, up to that point, was by far the most significant military action outside its borders, Russia defeated Georgia in a decisive five-day war.

In retrospect, one could argue that if Nato had moved faster and accepted Ukraine and Georgia much earlier, none of what followed would have happened. This argument has the virtue of examples to bolster it: the Baltics entered Nato, and despite being former Soviet republics, have experienced relatively little Russian harassment since. But one could also argue that, in the face of mounting Russian alarm and repeated warnings about “red lines” over Nato, the US States and its allies should have been extra careful. They should have taken into account the specificity of the places they were dealing with, in particular Ukraine. Ukraine was not Russia, in Leonid Kuchma’s famous phrase, but it was also not Poland. One of the problems with Ukraine’s Nato bid in 2008, for example, pushed forth by the western-friendly Yushchenko administration, was that it was unpopular inside Ukraine – in large part because Ukrainians knew how Russia felt about it, and were rightly worried.

But as Nato and the EU both expanded further east, their representatives considered it a matter of principle not to make compromises with a regime they viewed as trying to bully them and Ukraine. Again, they may have been right in principle. In practice, Putin has been warning of this invasion, in one form or another, for 15 years. A great many voices are now saying that we should have been much tougher on Putin much earlier – that the sanctions we are now seeing should have been deployed after the war in Georgia in 2008, or after the polonium poisoning in London of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. But there is also a case to be made that we should have thought more deeply about how to create a security arrangement, and an economic one, in which Ukraine would never have been faced with such a fateful choice.

4. What Putin thinks

S till, at the centre of this tragedy lies one man: Vladimir Putin. He has embarked on a murderous and criminal war that also appears almost certain to be judged a colossal strategic blunder – uniting Europe, galvanising Nato, destroying his economy and isolating his country. What happened?

There have always been multiple competing views of Putin, falling along different axes as to his competence, his intelligence, his morality. That is, some people who thought he was evil also thought he was smart, and some people who thought he was merely defending Russian interests also thought he was incompetent.

Five years ago in this paper, during the boom in Putinology that followed Donald Trump’s election, I made the case that Putin was basically a “normal” politician in the Russian context. That didn’t mean he was in any way admirable – the way he prosecuted the war in Chechnya, which launched his presidential candidacy, was evidence enough of his bad intentions. Nor did I think he should be hacking Hillary Clinton’s emails. Nonetheless I thought that, given Russia’s history, its traumatic experience of the post-Soviet transition, the internal dynamics of the Yeltsin regime, and the wider geopolitical context, the person who took over from Yeltsin was almost certain to have been a nationalist authoritarian, whether or not he was named Vladimir Putin. The question seemed to be: would this other nationalist authoritarian, not named Putin, have behaved very differently? Here there was some limited historical evidence, in the persons of Boris Yeltsin (author of the first war in Chechnya) and Dmitry Medvedev (author of the war in Georgia), that he would not.

The moment, at least in my mind, where Putin rendered these questions irrelevant, was the attempted poisoning with a nerve agent of the oppositionist Alexei Navalny, an attempted murder that would almost certainly have had to have Putin’s approval. Other political murders in Russia had seemed to me less clearcut. There was good reason to believe that the journalist Anna Politkovskaya and the politician Boris Nemtsov , for example, had been killed on the order of the Chechen warlord Ramzan Kadyrov. And while Kadyrov was Putin’s loyal ally, they were not one and the same . Possibly this was a distinction without a difference, and yet it seemed that talk of a dictatorship in Russia obscured the fact that the country still had some room, albeit narrowing by the year, for political life and freedom of thought. We are now seeing what an actual Russian dictatorship looks like: all remnants of an opposition media shuttered, journalists threatened with 15 years of prison, unbridled and unanswerable police aggression. With the invasion of Ukraine, there is no one left who thinks Putin is merely acting like a standard post-Soviet Russian politician.

Is there any explaining Putin’s thought process? Here, there were objective and subjective factors. Objectively, he was not wrong to think that Ukraine was integrating further and further into the west. The EU-Ukraine Association Agreement that he had so fiercely opposed in 2013 had been signed in 2014 and gone into effect in 2017. Nato, too, was on its way. There were now Nato weapons and Nato personnel in Ukraine. Putin’s attempt to exert control over Ukrainian politics by creating the breakaway republics in Donetsk and Luhansk had failed. In fact, it had not only failed, it had backfired. Ukrainians who had been lukewarm toward Nato now supported joining and many who had entertained pro-Russian sentiments had seen what Russian puppets had done in the breakaway republics. Ukraine, an imperfect democracy, scored a 61 on the Freedom House scale in 2021; the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (competing under the umbrella term “Eastern Donbas”) scored a 4. No one wanted that for themselves. Putin had won Crimea and some territory in the east, but he had lost Ukraine. In the wake of Joe Biden’s election, which signalled a renewed American commitment to Europe and Nato and, inter alia, Ukraine, things were going less and less in Putin’s favour.

But he was not entirely out of options. In 2015 he had extracted, through force of arms, the Minsk-2 agreement – an onerous peace deal, never actually implemented by either side, that had obliged Ukraine to reintegrate the Donetsk and Luhansk republics into a federated Ukraine, where they would essentially have veto power over the country’s foreign policy; perhaps, in 2022, he could get Minsk-3 as well. And if he had previously left the implementation of the Minsk agreement to a democratically elected Ukrainian government, he could decide not to make that mistake again. He could install a leader in Kyiv whom he could trust. A month before the invasion, the British government declared that it possessed intelligence indicating that Putin planned to do exactly that.

And yet here we get into the subjective factors: why, in retrospect, did Putin think he could pull this manoeuvre on a country the size of Ukraine? Partly, to be sure, he was buoyed up by his string of military victories – in Chechnya, in Georgia, in Crimea, in Syria. He had found great success, often at relatively little cost, by being a kind of international spoiler to the west’s designs in various parts of the world.

He must also have been emboldened by what had happened in Ukraine in 2014. Crimea had surrendered to Russia without a shot. A few weeks later, a small group of middle-aged mercenaries had been able to march 100 miles into Ukraine and capture a small city called Slovyansk, igniting the active phase of the war in eastern Ukraine. If a ragtag outfit could do something like that, imagine what an actual army could do.

There was also the important factor that Putin did not believe Ukraine was a real country. This was not specific to Putin – many Russians, unfortunately, don’t see why Ukraine should be independent. But with Putin this has become a real obsession, impermeable to contradictory evidence. One type of leader would see that Ukraine refuses to submit to his will and conclude that it was an independent entity. But for Putin this could only mean that it was controlled by someone else. After all, this was already the case in the parts of Ukraine that Putin had conquered – he had installed puppets to run the self-proclaimed people’s republics in eastern Ukraine. So perhaps it stood to reason that the west had also installed a puppet – Zelenskiy – who would run at the first sign of trouble.

5. Where does this end?

J ust about everyone has been surprised by the ferocity of the Ukrainian resistance: Putin, obviously, but also western military analysts who had accurately predicted the invasion but inaccurately thought the war would be over very quickly, and possibly even the Ukrainians themselves. Before the war, sociologists who studied Ukraine pointed to a fairly high willingness on the part of Ukrainians to fight for their country, but it was one thing to tell a sociologist, and it was another thing to go and fight. But, clearly, the Ukrainians have decided to fight.

Putin clearly did not expect Volodymyr Zelenskiy to turn into Winston Churchill. Zelenskiy had been elected as a peace candidate in 2019. A political novice from the country’s industrial south-east, he won an impressive 73% of the vote in a runoff against Petro Poroshenko. The latter’s campaign slogan had been “Army! Language! Faith!” Zelenskiy, by contrast, was elected as a breath of fresh air, someone who was going to do things differently, and also someone who indicated a willingness to try to negotiate with Putin to end the war. Poroshenko’s campaign warned that Zelenskiy was a Kremlin stooge who would sell out the country. People voted for him anyway.

By the time war rolled around, Zelenskiy was no longer popular in Ukraine. His approval rating was in the 20s. He had failed to find a peaceful solution to the festering conflict in the Donbas region, and he had started persecuting his opponents. Viktor Medvedchuk, a close ally of Putin who was considered his point man in Ukraine, was placed under house arrest , and Poroshenko, still Zelenskiy’s main political rival, was charged with treason for some business dealings he had with Medvedchuk and the separatist regions in 2014. And then, when the clouds of war started gathering, Zelenskiy insisted the threat was not real. He criticised the Biden administration for its alarmist rhetoric. The night before the invasion, he told Ukrainians they could sleep soundly that night. But the first Russian missiles hit their targets before dawn.

The day before, in his anguished, last-minute appeal to the Russian people, Zelenskiy had made clear that he did not want war. But it was also the case that he did not have much room for compromise. The only clear path to peace – implementation of the Minsk accords – had become, with the passage of time, even more intolerable to Ukrainians than it had been at their signing. At the end of the day, people don’t like to feel as if they have been bullied into compromise by their larger and angrier neighbour. And most observers noted that, as terrifying as a Russian invasion was, a compromise by Zelenskiy that ceded too much would probably lead to the overthrow of his government.

If the only way to avoid war was through a craven surrender, then it would have to be war. Ukraine would fight. And fight they have.

Now, as the Russian army regroups and starts bombing and shelling Ukrainian cities, Nato governments are faced with an excruciating choice: either they watch in horror as innocent Ukrainians are killed, or they get further involved and risk an even wider conflict. Where this stops it’s impossible to say. As of this writing, with the Russian leadership continuing to put forth maximalist demands, a settlement looks far away. And whether, if the Russian demands moderate, Zelenskiy will be able to accept a Russian Crimea and eastern Ukraine after all the blood his people have spilled – and, indeed, whether the people will accept it – is an open question.

Someday, the war will end, and someday after that, though probably not as soon as one might hope, the regime in Russia will have to change. There will be another opportunity to welcome Russia again into the concert of nations. Our job then will be to do it differently than we did it this time, in the post-Soviet period. But that is work for the future. For now, in agony and sympathy, we watch and wait.

This article was amended on 11 March 2022. Slovenia was not part of the Soviet bloc as stated in an earlier version.

• The long read
• Volodymyr Zelenskiy
• Vladimir Putin

Most viewed

Short Essay: Civil War

Crafting a short essay on a topic as expansive as the Civil War can be a daunting task. The key to success lies in focusing your argument, conducting thorough research, and presenting your findings in a clear, concise manner. Below is a guide designed to help you write a compelling essay on the Civil War, covering everything from initial research to final proofreading.

Table of Contents

Understanding the Assignment

Before you begin, ensure you understand the requirements of the assignment. What is the prompt asking you to discuss? Is there a specific angle or topic you need to focus on, such as the causes of the Civil War, a particular battle, or the ramifications of the conflict? Clarifying these points will help you stay on topic and avoid unnecessary tangents.

Initial Research and Thesis Development

Start with a broad overview of the Civil War to help you narrow down your focus. Books, academic journals, and reputable online sources can provide a solid foundation of knowledge. As you research, look for a specific aspect of the Civil War that interests you and has sufficient material to explore in a short essay.

From your research, develop a thesis statement that presents your central argument. A strong thesis is specific and debatable, guiding the direction of your essay. For example, if you’re discussing the causes of the Civil War, your thesis might argue that while slavery was the central issue, other political and economic factors also played crucial roles.

Crafting an Outline

An outline is invaluable for organizing your thoughts and ensuring you cover all necessary points. For a 1200-word essay, a simple structure might include:

Mastering the Short Essay: Writing About the Civil War

Crafting a short essay on a topic as expansive as the Civil War can be a daunting task. The key to success lies in focusing your argument, conducting thorough research, and presenting your findings in a clear, concise manner. Below is a guide designed to help you write a compelling 1200-word essay on the Civil War, covering everything from initial research to final proofreading.

• Hook to engage the reader
• Background information
• Thesis statement
• Paragraph 1: Major cause or event with supporting evidence
• Paragraph 2: Another cause or event with supporting evidence
• Paragraph 3: Further analysis or an additional supporting point
• (Each paragraph should have a clear topic sentence and provide analysis, not just description)
• Restate the thesis in a new way
• Summarize key points
• Provide final thoughts or implications of your argument

Writing the Introduction

Begin your essay with a compelling hook, such as a provocative question, a brief anecdote, or a startling statistic related to the Civil War. Provide necessary background information that sets the stage for your thesis, and conclude the introduction with your thesis statement, clearly laying out what your essay will argue.

Developing the Body Paragraphs

Each body paragraph should focus on one main idea that supports your thesis. Start with a topic sentence that clearly states the paragraph’s main point. Follow this with evidence from your research, including quotes, statistics, and historical examples. Be sure to analyze the evidence, explaining how it supports your argument. Transition smoothly between paragraphs to maintain a cohesive narrative.

Writing the Conclusion

Your conclusion should restate your thesis in a new light, considering the evidence and analysis you’ve presented. Summarize the main points of your essay and end with a strong final thought that underscores the significance of your argument. Avoid introducing new information in the conclusion.

Integrating Sources

When citing sources, follow the required citation style (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.) and ensure that all quotations and paraphrased material are properly attributed. This not only gives credit to the original authors but also strengthens the credibility of your own work.

Editing and Proofreading

After completing your draft, take a break before revising. Editing is crucial for clarity and conciseness. Check that each sentence and paragraph contributes to your thesis and that your argument flows logically. Look for areas where you can tighten your prose and eliminate redundancy.

Proofreading is the final step. Read your essay carefully for grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors. Reading aloud can help you catch mistakes that your eyes might skip when reading silently.

Additional Tips

• Stay within the word count. It’s easy to become engrossed in the vast history of the Civil War, but discipline is key to maintaining a concise essay.
• Use primary sources such as speeches, letters, and official documents to provide a firsthand perspective on the Civil War.
• Understand the limitations of your essay. You cannot cover everything about the Civil War in 1200 words, so focus on a particular aspect or argument.
• Maintain an objective tone, especially when discussing controversial or sensitive topics. Present evidence fairly and acknowledge counterarguments where appropriate.

Example of a Short Civil War Essay Structure

Introduction (150 words)

• Hook: Present an intriguing fact about the Civil War’s impact.
• Background: Briefly outline the period leading up to the war.
• Thesis: State your argument regarding the primary cause of the Civil War.

Body (900 words)

• Topic Sentence: Introduce the first cause (e.g., economic differences between theNorth and South).
• Evidence & Analysis: Provide specific examples and discuss how the economic divide contributed to tensions.
• Transition: Lead into the next paragraph by hinting at how economic factors intertwined with more direct causes.
• Topic Sentence: Discuss the role of slavery and its moral implications as a central cause.
• Evidence & Analysis: Use primary sources and historical evidence to show how slavery fueled sectionalism.
• Transition: Connect the issue of slavery to the wider political frictions it exacerbated.
• Topic Sentence: Address political factors, such as the power struggle between state and federal governments.
• Evidence & Analysis: Draw from political speeches and legislative acts to demonstrate the growing divide.
• Transition: Conclude with how these factors combined to make conflict inevitable.

Conclusion (150 words)

• Restate Thesis: Summarize your argument, now substantiated with evidence.
• Recap Main Points: Briefly review the causes discussed and their interconnections.
• Final Thought: Offer insight into the Civil War’s legacy and its relevance to contemporary issues or historical understanding.

By adhering to this structure and focusing on clear, analytical prose, your essay will not only fulfill the assignment’s requirements but also provide a meaningful contribution to the understanding of the Civil War’s complex causes and legacy.

Civil War Short Essay Example #1

The American Civil War remains one of the most transformative periods in United States history, a conflict that pitted brother against brother and nearly tore the nation asunder. While the moral battle over slavery is often cited as the primary cause of the war, an exploration of the period reveals a complex web of political and economic factors that were equally instrumental in leading to the secession of the Southern states and the subsequent conflict. This essay will argue that, in addition to the obvious moral divide over slavery, the Civil War was rooted in profound economic differences and political disputes that shaped the trajectory of the nation.

Economic Divergence Between North and South

The antebellum period in the United States was marked by a growing economic chasm between the industrializing North and the agrarian South. The North’s economy was rapidly diversifying and industrializing, leading to the development of a modern capitalist economy that required free labor and the protection of patents and innovations. In stark contrast, the Southern economy was heavily reliant on agriculture, particularly the cultivation of cotton, which required a large, cheap labor force — a need met by the institution of slavery.

The economic policies that benefited the North, such as tariffs on imported goods, were often detrimental to the South, which relied on free trade to export its agricultural products. The Tariff of 1828, known in the South as the “Tariff of Abominations,” exemplified such contentious economic policies, as it placed heavy duties on imported goods, disadvantaging Southern planters. The resulting economic strain contributed significantly to the growing sentiment of Southern nationalism and the belief that the federal government was favoring Northern interests at the expense of the Southern way of life.

Political Strife and the Struggle for Power

Politically, the United States was in turmoil as the debate over the expansion of slavery into new territories and states intensified. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 attempted to regulate the spread of slavery but ultimately only postponed the inevitable conflict. The Dred Scott decision of 1857, which ruled that African Americans could not be citizens and that Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in the territories, inflamed tensions further, signaling to the anti-slavery North that there was no legal method to prevent the spread of the institution.

The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, on a platform that opposed the extension of slavery, was the final straw for many in the South. Lincoln’s victory was seen not only as a direct threat to the institution of slavery but also as evidence that the South no longer had a voice in the national government. Secession followed, as Southern states sought to protect their economic interests and maintain their political power by forming a separate nation in which their values and economic system could persist unchallenged.

While the moral conflict over the institution of slavery was undeniably a driving force behind the American Civil War, the struggle was also deeply rooted in fundamental economic and political disparities between the North and South. The industrial versus agricultural economies, the imposition of tariffs, the political power struggles, and the contentious legislation over the spread of slavery all combined to create an atmosphere ripe for conflict. The Civil War was, therefore, not solely a battle over the morality of slavery but also a clash over different visions of economic development and political power. Understanding these contributing factors is crucial to grasping the complexity of the Civil War and the lasting impact it had on the United States, shaping the nation’s economic and political landscape for generations to come.

Civil War Short Essay Example #2

The Civil War, a pivotal event in American history, was a complex conflict with roots extending deep into the nation’s past. Central to this conflict was the institution of slavery, which had not only moral and humanitarian implications but also profound socio-economic and political consequences. This essay contends that slavery was not just a side issue but the core factor that led to the secession of the Southern states and ultimately the Civil War, as it was inextricably linked to the identity, economy, and political power of the South.

Slavery: The Cornerstone of Southern Society

In the antebellum South, slavery was more than a labor system; it was the foundation upon which the social order and economic prosperity of the Southern states were built. The “peculiar institution” enabled the South to become a powerhouse of agricultural production, particularly in the cultivation of cotton, tobacco, and sugar. This agrarian economy was so reliant on slave labor that by the mid-19th century, nearly four million African Americans lived in bondage, representing a significant portion of the South’s population and economic might.

The wealth generated by slave labor created a stark division in society, with a small elite of plantation owners exerting considerable influence over Southern politics. This elite worked tirelessly to protect and expand slavery as essential to their economic interests and way of life, leading to a rigid defense of the institution and a growing sense of Southern distinctiveness.

The Moral and Political Battle Lines

The moral crusade against slavery had been growing for decades, with abolitionists in the North and elsewhere condemning the practice as an abhorrent violation of human rights. The publication of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” and the violent resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, among other events, heightened Northern opposition to slavery and sowed seeds of sectional discord.

The political arena became a battleground over the issue of slavery, with the formation of the Republican Party in the 1850s, which held the containment of slavery as one of its central tenets. The Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act sought to address the extension of slavery in new territories but ultimately underscored the inability of legislative measures to resolve the deep-seated conflict.

The violent confrontations in “Bleeding Kansas,” the Dred Scott decision, and John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry were symptomatic of the tensions that had escalated to a level where political compromise seemed unachievable. The election of Abraham Lincoln, who was perceived as an enemy of the Southern way of life, acted as the catalyst that transformed the dispute over slavery from a political struggle into an armed conflict.

Secession and the Onset of War

The secession of the Southern states was a direct response to the threat they perceived to the institution of slavery. The Confederate States of America was founded on the principle of preserving and maintaining the institution of slavery, which its leaders deemed essential for their economic survival and societal structure. The firing on Fort Sumter in April 1861 was not just an act of rebellion; it was a defense of the socio-economic order of the South against what was seen as Northern aggression.

The American Civil War was fundamentally a conflict over slavery and its place in the United States. The institution was so deeply embedded in the Southern economy, society, and identity that any threat to its existence was met with the utmost resistance. While there were certainly other factors at play, including states’ rights and economic disagreements, these issues cannot be disentangled from the overarching presence of slavery. The battle over whether the United States would be a land of freedom or bondage shaped the political discourse of the era and ignited a war whose reverberations are still felt today. By acknowledging the centrality of slavery in the Civil War, we gain a clearer understanding of the profound sacrifices made in the pursuit of liberty and equality, and the ongoing struggle to realize these ideals for all Americans.

Final Thoughts

Writing a short essay on the Civil War demands focus, discipline, and attention to detail. By carefully selecting a topic, crafting a clear thesis, and supporting your argument with well-researched evidence, you can create a powerful and concise piece of writing. Remember to revise and proofread thoroughly to ensure that your essay is free of errors and that your argument shines through. With these strategies in mind, you are well-equipped to tackle a short essay on the Civil War or any other historical topic with confidence and skill.

About Mr. Greg

Mr. Greg is an English teacher from Edinburgh, Scotland, currently based in Hong Kong. He has over 5 years teaching experience and recently completed his PGCE at the University of Essex Online. In 2013, he graduated from Edinburgh Napier University with a BEng(Hons) in Computing, with a focus on social media.

Mr. Greg’s English Cloud was created in 2020 during the pandemic, aiming to provide students and parents with resources to help facilitate their learning at home.

Whatsapp: +85259609792

[email protected]

Home / Essay Samples / War / Effect of War / Impact Of Wars On Human Life

Impact Of Wars On Human Life

• Category: War
• Topic: Effect of War

Pages: 1 (501 words)

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Cold War Essays

Atomic Bomb Essays

Israeli Palestinian Conflict Essays

The Vietnam War Essays

American Civil War Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->