Needless Conflicts & Disputes in History

Categories: Cold War Conflict History International Relations War

Essay, Pages 10 (2266 words)

Views

Throughout history and despite the civilization, conflict and disputes which eventually escalate to war have been a tragic part to the past. A world without darkness would be blinding. A world without light would be pitch black. Likewise, there cannot be blessing and comfort without hardship and difficulty. A look at a few of the hardships that happened in the past can demonstrate that they most likely did not need to occur. Hundreds of people suffer and even lose their lives due to battling and bickering in situations when another approach could have been taken.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ Needless Conflicts & Disputes in History ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

The Wars of the Roses and the Cold War are good examples of inessential hardships that anguished people in one way or another. Through these two conflicts, I will attempt to demonstrate that war is unnecessary with the use of diplomatic alternatives of avoiding the underlying conflict or creation of “win-win” situations for both parties.

King Henry VI originally inherited the English and French throne from his father at a very young age, and married Margaret of Anjou in 1445.

King Henry’s court was not perfect, for he “...had little interest in politics and was a weak ruler. This incited rampant lawlessness throughout his realm and opened the door for power-hungry nobles and kingmakers to plot behind his back.” (History.com “Wars of the Roses” paragraph 4). Henry’s misuse of power and lack of royal authority caused proprietors and bumpkins alike to revolt in 1450, being led by Jack Cade. Cade and his mob marched to present Henry with a list of demands called the Complaint of the Poor Commons of Kent.

King Henry never agreed to any of the demands, one of them most notably being to recall Richard, the Duke of York, back to England. Richard had returned to England in 1452 with the intent to dispose of Edmund Beaufort of Somerset and the rest of Henry’s corrupted advisors.

After creating an army, Richard “marched on London declaring fealty to Henry while also compelling him to remove Somerset from his post.” (History.com “Wars of the Roses” paragraph 11). Somerset remained until Henry fell ill to insanity in 1454, keeping him from ruling. While King Henry was unwell, “...Richard would become the Lord Protector of England and imprisoned Somerset in the Tower of London.” (History.com “Wars of the Roses” paragraph 12). Henry was, however, able to recover from his spell of insanity in early 1455, and sent Richard of York and his ministers away. Months later, Richard formed an alliance with Richard Neville, the Earl of Warwick, to try to reason with Henry. The bartering had failed, and a short but impactful clash broke out between the Yorks and the Lancasters, leaving “Somerset dead and Henry wounded.” (History.com “Wars of the Roses” paragraph 14). The first fight was a foreshadowing of the carnage that was to follow for the next thirty years.

Both the Yorks and the Lancasters had their fair share of wins and losses. Though there were no more than twenty battles in total, there was still an overwhelming number of casualties, especially for both parties to be related to each other. The Yorks have “...descended from the female relatives of Edward’s second and fourth sons, while the Lancasters were related to Edward’s third son, John of Gaunt. This complicated family tree ensured that both factions had a legitimate case for their royal lineage, though by modern standards the Yorkists’ claim was undoubtedly stronger. Nevertheless, when the Wars of the Roses first kicked off, the Lancasters had been entrenched on the throne since 1399, when Henry IV usurped power from his cousin Richard II.” (History.com “9 Things You Should Know About the Wars of the Roses” paragraph 1). The Battle of Towton had the most blood spilled out of all of the clashes, saying that it involved at many as 80,000 men. It is said that “…the two sides began by exchanging punishing volleys of arrows before clashing in fierce hand-to-hand combat. The fighting went on for 10 exhausting hours...but the Yorkists eventually routed the Lancastrians, allowing Edward IV to tighten his grip on the throne.

While estimates of casualties at the Battle of Towton vary, it may have claimed as many as 40,000 lives—more than in any battle ever fought in Britain.” (History.com “9 Things You Should Know About the Wars of the Roses” paragraph 6). There was unneeded carnage in addition to the major battles. The Lancasters had King Henry as their ally, but his ill health made sure that he never played a major part in the entire war. In his place was his wife Margaret, who “was responsible for raising an army that killed Richard of York...” (History.com “9 Things You Should Know About the Wars of the Roses” paragraph 4). Margaret was known for being extremely intelligent and cruel, showing “little mercy to her rivals, most of whom she considered traitors. In one famous episode, she even allowed her 7-year-old son to choose the method of execution for two captured Yorkists, and complied when the boy decreed that they should ‘have their heads taken off.” (History.com “9 Things You Should Know About the Wars of the Roses” paragraph 4).

An analysis of the violence that went on from 1455 to 1485 show that it did not need to happen. “At the same time, the scale of the disruption caused by these ‘wars’ should not be exaggerated. Most armies were fewer than 5,000 men strong and existed for just a few weeks or months at a time. The historian J.R Lander has calculated that the actual fighting in the period 1455-85 amounted to less than thirteen weeks in 30 years!”(The Wars of the Roses and Henry VII: Turbulence, Tyranny and Tradition in England 1459-c.1513, page 24) There was little conflict because the parties were not arguing over who was going to rule until later in the war. Instead it was about “...who would influence the enfeebled king and control his government.”(The Wars of the Roses and Henry VII: Turbulence, Tyranny and Tradition in England 1459-c.1513, page 24). By creating a solution where both parties could benefit, rule, or have equal influence, hardships would be avoided and human lives would be spared. One of the main reasons why the fighting started was when in 1450, when King Henry denied all the demands on the Complaint of the Poor Commons of Kent. By agreeing to at least a small portion of the requests, the rebels could have been satisfied, and the riots might have ceased.

Another main factor was when the Yorks and Lancasters started a battle, leaving Somerset empty and King Henry injured. If more attempts at negotiation took place from the king, there would have been a much lower chance of both groups spilling blood. “For much of the period, leading magnates were attempting to avoid war, not promote it. In 1458, the Lancastrian government organised an official “Love Day”. Here the Yorkists were reconciled with their opponents and gave money to the relatives of those Lancastrian lords killed by them in the first Battle of St. Albans.” This further shows “...a genuine attempt to take the feuding out of English politics.” (The Wars of the Roses and Henry VII: Turbulence, Tyranny and Tradition in England 1459-c.1513, page 25) The resulting tensions stem from Henry VI being stubborn, undiplomatic, and unwilling to compromise supporting the argument that if he was easier to work and negotiate with, the Wars of the Roses would have had a lot less conflict within it, if there were to be any conflict at all.

Secondly, an analysis of the time and events surrounding the conflict of the Cold War further demonstrate the lost benefits of diplomacy and possibility for a diplomatic alternative. The United States were allied with the Soviet Union to combat the Axis powers in World War II. The relationship that they had was shaky to say the least. Americans had been cautious about communism which the Soviets practiced, and troubled about the tyrannical rule leadership that Joseph Stalin employed. The soviets also “...resented the Americans’ decades-long refusal to treat the USSR as a legitimate part of the international community as well as their delayed entry into World War II, which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Russians.” (History.com “Cold War History” paragraph 1). When the war ended, these issues evolved into skepticism and antipathy, even going as far as the United States believing that the Russian expansion was part of their plan for world domination. The Soviets disliked the “...American officials’ bellicose rhetoric, arms buildup and interventionist approach to international relations.” (History.com “Cold War History” paragraph 2). These fears led to the American officials creating a strategy against the Russian threat called “containment.” As George Kennan states in his Long Telegram, the Soviet Union was “…a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with the U.S. there can be no permanent modus vivendi [agreement between parties that disagree].” (History.com “Cold War History” paragraph 3).

The containment strategy served as a reason to build arms in America. A National Security Council Report named NSC-68 mirrored Truman’s request for the United States to use military force to halt the expansion of communism. In addition, American officials advocated for the creation of atomic weapons like the ones that ended World War I. This was the start of the “arms race,” resulting in both Americans and Soviets scrambling to make more powerful atomic bombs. The Russians tested an atom bomb in 1949, causing President Harry Truman to declare that the United States would make a hydrogen bomb, with Stalin following suit shortly after. Because of this constantly rising conflict, “...the stakes of the Cold War were perilously high. The first H-bomb test, in the Eniwetok atoll in the Marshall Islands, showed just how fearsome the nuclear age could be. It created a 25-square-mile fireball that vaporized an island, blew a huge hole in the ocean floor and had the power to destroy half of Manhattan.”(History.com “Cold War History” paragraph 6). Nuclear fear rose until the Nuclear Test-Ban of 1963 was signed, which banned the use of above ground nuclear weapons testing, and thus eliminating the fear of incoming surprise attacks on each other.

Even though the bombs were not used, the fear of being attacked at any moment invoked fear in many. One of the contributing reasons that the bombs weren’t deployed was out of fear. Neither “...the United States nor the Soviet Union were ready to use nuclear weapons for fear of the other’s retaliation (and thus of mutual atomic annihilation).” (Britannica.com Cold War Causes, Facts, & Summary paragraph 5). The fear of being suddenly wiped out by a surprise attack creeped its way into the minds of domestic Americans, encouraging them to make emergency bomb shelters in their backyards. Americans also “...practiced attack drills in schools and other public places. The 1950s and 1960s saw an epidemic of popular films that horrified moviegoers with depictions of nuclear devastation and mutant creatures. In these and other ways, the Cold War was a constant presence in Americans’ everyday lives.” (History.com “Cold War History” paragraph 7).
Similar to the prior example, these events did not need to happen. One main contributor to the unsteady relationship was due to the Soviets tyrannical leadership and the practice of communism so the analysis focuses on diplomatic efforts and hindsight from the United States position as a world leader. The Americans refused to treat the Soviet Union as an actual part in the international community, and participated in World War II late, costing millions of Russians their lives. The negative feelings that the Americans and Russians held against each other through diplomacy could have been avoided or possibly deescalated sooner by addressing the underlying conflict. Although events supported the United States decisions for the timing and participation in World War II with the Russians, more efforts to acknowledge their allies sacrifices diplomatically would have addressed growing sentiment.

Alternatively, the United States also could have engaged the USSR as part of the international community civilian unrest within both countries could have been different. Another underlying conflict and lost opportunity was the conspiracy that the Soviets were preparing for world domination, which might not have contributed to the unstable relationship as it did with intervention, summits, and/or forums allowing for improvement of the international relationship and unrest. Additionally, George Kennan’s plan for containment and the National Security Council Report was what sparked the arms race, the “competition” to create the more devastating nuclear weapon and threaten each other with it. Arguably if George Kennan’s Long Telegram was never included the ideas of containment, the Americans and Russians most likely would not have created atom and hydrogen bombs to combat each other. Viewing the Soviets as enemies after World War II could have cost thousands their lives, causing for multiple national security experts to propound that “...sheer luck is the best explanation for why the Cold War did not conclude with a charred and lifeless planet.”(Thedailybeast.com paragraph 16). The threat of nuclear annihilation experienced by both parties that lasted 45 years would not have existed or significantly reduced if extra measures were taken to avoid conflict.

The Cold War and the Wars of the Roses were conflicts that negatively affected both of the parties involved, and cost people their lives in some way, shape, or form. While conflict is necessary in some situations, these two conflicts did not need to escalate the way that they did over arguments gone wrong. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable, and no amount of debating could ever be worth hundreds of human lives.