my war against spammers


Email (or e-mail) is the greatest thing since sliced bread but spam spoils that bread.

There are lots of ideas out there for reducing the spam that fills your mailbox. One good idea, of course, is to NEVER, ever, under any circumstances, reply to any spam. Never. Delete them. Always.

Spam is everybody's problem and I do what I can to fight it. Seems to me if everybody did this, it would cut spam to near nothing. Unfortunately, I only lead horses to water; I can't make 'em drink it.

Here is what I do, as my share to STOP the spammers.

Nearly all my junk mail automatically winds up in my Windows Mail "junk e-mail" folder.

My ISP (Internet Service Provider) is TELUS. I have set my Telus account so that Telus adds *Telus detected spam* in front of the subject, but does not delete them. This means I do receive them all. Their filter is VERY good but there is an occasional error.

When I feel like it, I go to the "junk e-mail" folder and right-click on the first email. There I choose "Properties." On the next window I choose the tab "Details" and then select ALL the "details" shown and put them into my clipboard with Ctrl-C. Then I click "Cancel."

Now I click the "Forward" button to forward the email to the appropriate authorities.

Now I select my own "signature" and Ctrl-V to erase the signature and replace it with the spam's "details."

I might erase the AVG note at the bottom to show it has scanned the incoming email for viruses. maybe not.

Now I look a the "details" stuff which, typically, may look like this actual one: (I have xxxx'd out my own address)

Return-Path:
Received: from priv-edmwaa11.telusplanet.net ([204.209.205.55])
by priv-edmwes33.telusplanet.net
(InterMail vM.7.08.04.00 201-2186-134-20080326) with ESMTP
id
<20090327061007.USQQ3504.priv-edmwes33.telusplanet.net@priv-edmwaa11.telusplanet.net>;
Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:10:07 -0600
Received: from vszbskzie (p4250-ipbf6605marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp
[114.150.51.250])
by priv-edmwaa11.telusplanet.net (BorderWare Security Platform) with ESMTP
id EF4835273D3C01D7;
Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:10:05 -0600 (MDT)
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:21:48 -0700
In-Reply-To: <1ee001c9ab90$1ade299c$aab5ed4d@cp8ko92>
X-Sender:
Reply-To: "Melvina Kellee"
From: "Melvina Kellee"
Message-ID: <1238131308.3353@entergy.com>
To: xxxxxxxxxx.net
Subject: *TELUS Detected Spam*Designer Rep1icaWatches & Hand Bags, AAA Top
Qua1ity. 100% exact as original. Excellent prices. Order now! widpc 0u
Sender:
X-BTI-AntiSpam:
score:90,sta:off,dcc:off,dnsbl:matched/1,sw:off,bsn:66/passed,spf:off,dk:off,pbmf:none,ipr:none,trusted:no,ts:no,bs:no,ubl:matched/1
X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 8.0.238 [270.11.29/2024]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=======AVGMAIL-49CCDE590000======="

and look for the LAST (not the first) line starting with "Received" which in this example, is this line:

Received: from vszbskzie (p4250-ipbf6605marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp [114.150.51.250])

On that line I look for the number which, in this case, is "114.150.51.250" which represents the unique IP address of the sender's Internet Service Provider. When you know the IP address, you can run a "whois" search for the ISP which provides the sender with Internet access.

There are two websites which I use to identify the ISP:

http://www.geektools.com/whois.php
or
https://ws.arin.net/whois/

Enter that long IP address number at either of these sites. In the info that appears, you will find something like "report abuse to......." etc with the ISP's email address. Copy and Paste that address into the "To" line of the email you are forwarding.

Usually, I send a cc to spam@uce.gov and if Telus had not marked it as spam, then a cc to them at report_spam@telus.net.

If the email was a definite scam, fraud or trick, I'll send it to scamreports@fraudaid.com.

Sometimes you find that a lot of your spam comes via one ISP. For example, I found that the IP address 204.209.205.55 comes up frequently. To simplify matters, I added that to my address book. When I see that number in the header, I simply get the address from my address book rather than identify it again.

Loopback
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term loopback (sometimes spelled loop-back) is generally used to describe methods or procedures of routing electronic signals, digital data streams, or other flows of items, from their originating facility quickly back to the same source entity without intentional processing or modification. This is primarily intended as a means of testing the transmission or transportation infrastructure.
Examples of applications include the following:
A method of performing transmission tests of access lines from the serving switching center, which usually does not require the assistance of personnel at the served terminal.
A method of testing between stations (not necessarily adjacent) wherein two lines are used, with the test being done at one station and the two lines interconnected at the distant station. Commonly called loop around when the interconnecting circuit is accessed by dialing.
A patch cable, applied manually or automatically, remotely or locally, that facilitates a loop-back test.
A communication channel with only one endpoint. Any message transmitted through such a channel is immediately received by the same channel.
Contents [hide]
1 Virtual network interface
2 Network equipment
3 Serial interfaces
4 Telecommunications
5 References
6 See also
[edit]Virtual network interface

All TCP/IP implementations support a loopback device, which is a virtual network interface implemented in software only and not connected to any hardware, but which is fully integrated into the computer system's internal network infrastructure. Any traffic that a computer program sends to the loopback interface is immediately received on the same interface.
Correspondingly, the Internet Protocol (IP) specifies a loopback network. In IPv4 this is the network with the CIDR prefix 127/8 (RFC 3330). The most commonly used IP address on the loopback device is 127.0.0.1 for IPv4, although any address in the range 127.0.0.0 to 127.255.255.255 is mapped to it. IPv6 designates only a single address for this function, 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 (also written as ::1), having the ::1/128 prefix (RFC 3513). The standard, officially reserved, domain name for these addresses is localhost (RFC 2606).
On Unix-like systems, the loopback interface usually has the device name lo or lo0.
A loopback interface has several uses. It may be used by network client software on a computer to communicate with server software on the same computer, viz., on a computer running a web server, pointing a web browser to the URLs http://127.0.0.1/ or http://localhost/ will access that computer's own web site. This works without any actual network connection–so it is useful for testing services without exposing them to security risks from remote network access. Likewise, pinging the loopback interface is a basic test of the functionality of the IP stack in the operating system.
Packets sent in an IP network with a source address belonging to the loopback interface can cause a number of problems for older or buggy network software. Such packets are known as "martian packets" [1]. The Internet Protocol specification dictates that such packets must not be transmitted outside of a host, and must be dropped if received on a network interface (cf. RFC 1700, RFC 2893).
One notable exception to the use of the loopback network addresses (127/8) is their use in Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) traceroute error detection techniques (RFC 4379) in which their property of not being routable provides a convenient means to avoid delivery of faulty packet to end users.
Loopback addresses are the subject of a reasonably common Internet prank: directing an inexperienced user to connect to (or attack) his own loopback interface as if it were a remote server[2].
[edit]Network equipment

Some network equipment uses the term loopback for a virtual interface used for management purposes. Unlike a proper loopback interface, this loopback device is not used to talk with itself.
Such an interface is assigned an address that can be accessed from management equipment over a network but is not assigned to any of the real interfaces on the device. This loopback address is also used for management datagrams, such as alarms, originating from the equipment. The property that makes this virtual interface special is that applications that use it will send or receive traffic using the address assigned to the virtual interface as opposed to the address on the physical interface through which the traffic passes.
[edit]Serial interfaces

A serial communications transceiver can use loopback for testing its functionality. For example, a device's transmit pin connected to its receive pin will result in the device receiving exactly what it transmits. Moving this looping connection to the remote end of a cable adds the cable to this test. Moving it to the far end of a modem link extends the test further. This is a common troubleshooting technique and is often combined with a specialized test device that sends specific patterns and counts any errors that come back (see Bit Error Rate Test). Some devices include built-in loopback capability.
A simple serial interface loopback test, called paperclip test, is sometimes used to identify serial ports of a computer and verify operation. It utilizes a terminal emulator application to send characters, with flow control set to off, to the serial port and receive the same back. For this purpose, a paperclip is used to short pin 2 to pin 3 (the receive and transmit pins) on a standard RS-232 interface using D-subminiature DE-9 or DB-25 connectors.
[edit]Telecommunications

In telecommunications, loopback, (short loop) is a hardware or software method which feeds a received signal or data back to the sender. It is used as an aid in debugging physical connection problems. As a test, many data communication devices can be configured to send specific patterns (such as all ones) on an interface, and can detect the reception of this signal on the same port. This is called a loopback test and can be performed within a modem or transceiver by connecting its output to its own input. A circuit between two points in different locations may be tested by applying a test signal on the circuit in one location, and having the network device at the other location send a signal back through the circuit. If this device receives its own signal back, this proves that the circuit is functioning.
A hardware loop is a simple device that physically connects the receive channel to the transmit channel. In the case of a network termination connector such as X.21, this is typically done by simply connecting the pins together in the connector. Media such as optical fiber or coaxial cable, which have separate transmit and receive connectors, can simply be looped together with a single strand of the appropriate medium.
A modem can be configured to loop incoming signals from either the remote modem or the local terminal. This is referred to as loopback or software loop.

Harry Murray
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Henry William Murray
1 December 1880 – 7 January 1966 (aged 85)

Major Harry Murray, November 1917
Nickname "Mad Harry"[1]
Place of birth Evandale, Tasmania, Australia
Place of death Miles, Queensland, Australia
Allegiance Commonwealth of Australia
Service/branch Australian Army
Years of service 1902–1908 (Launceston Artillery)
1914–1920 (WWI)
1939–1944 (WWII)
Rank Lieutenant Colonel
Commands held 4th Machine Gun Battalion
26th Battalion
23rd Queensland Regiment
Battles/wars First World War
Gallipoli Campaign
Western Front
Battle of the Somme
Battle of Mouquet Farm
Battle of Passchendaele
Battle of Hamel
Battle of Amiens
Battle of St. Quentin Canal
Second World War
Awards Victoria Cross
Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George
Distinguished Service Order & Bar
Distinguished Conduct Medal
Mentioned in Despatches (4)
Croix de guerre (France)
Henry William "Harry" Murray VC, CMG, DSO & Bar, DCM (1 December 1880 – 7 January 1966) was an Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest decoration for gallantry "in the face of the enemy" that can be awarded to members of the British and Commonwealth armed forces. Decorated several times throughout his service in the First World War, Murray rose from the rank of private to lieutenant colonel in three-and-a-half years. He is often described as the highest decorated infantry soldier of the British Empire during the First World War.[2]
Born in Tasmania, Murray worked as a farmer, courier and timber cutter before enlisting in September 1914. Assigned to a machine gun crew, he served during the Gallipoli Campaign, where he was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal before the withdrawal from the peninsula. He was later transferred along with the rest of his battalion to France for service on the Western Front, where he was awarded the Distinguished Service Order during the Battle of the Somme. In February 1917, Murray commanded a company during the battalion's attack on the German position of Stormy Trench. During the engagement, the company was able to capture the position and repulse three fierce counter-attacks, with Murray often leading bayonet and bombing charges himself. For his actions during the battle, Murray was awarded the Victoria Cross. Soon after his Victoria Cross action, he was promoted to major and earned a Bar to his Distinguished Service Order during an attack on the Hindenburg Line near Bullecourt. Promoted to lieutenant colonel in early 1918, he assumed command of the 4th Machine Gun Battalion, where he would remain until the end of the war.
Returning to Australia in 1920, Murray eventually settled in Queensland, where he purchased the grazing farm that would be his home for the remainder of his life. Re-enlisting for service in the Second World War, he was appointed as commanding officer of the 26th (Militia) Battalion. Taking his discharge in 1944, Murray returned to his farm and died in 1966 at the age of 85.
Contents [hide]
1 Early life
2 First World War
2.1 Enlistment and training
2.2 Gallipoli
2.3 Western Front: June 1916 to April 1917
2.4 Western Front, April 1917 to repatriation, March 1920
3 Later life
4 Notes
5 References
6 External links
[edit]Early life

Murray was born at Clairville, near Evandale, Tasmania, on 1 December 1880,[3] the eighth of nine children of Edward Kennedy Murray, a farmer, and his wife Clarissa, née Littler. Descended from convicts on his father's side, Murray was baptised on 23 November 1885, and attended Evandale State School. When he was fourteen years of age, his parents withdrew him from school to work on the family farm. However, his mother continued his education, placing emphasis on English.[4] The family later moved to Northcote, near St. Leonards, where Edward Murray died in 1904.[5] Harry Murray joined the Launceston Volunteer Artillery Corps in 1902, serving until 1908, when he migrated to Western Australia where his two older brothers had previously settled.[6]
Murray initially worked on his brother's wheat farm, before becoming a courier for a mining company at Kookynie, transporting gold and mail by either bicycle or on horseback. He travelled the same track on a fortnightly basis, gaining a reputation for being a crack shot with a .32 carbine that he carried.[7] At the time of his enlistment in 1914, Murray was working near Manjimup, in the south west of Western Australia, employing timber cutters for the railways.[8]
[edit]First World War

[edit]Enlistment and training
Murray enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force (AIF) in Perth on 30 September 1914. He declined the offer of a commission,[9] and was posted as a private to A Company of the newly formed 16th Battalion, 4th Brigade.[10] Appointed to one of the unit's two machine gun crews, he was sent to Blackboy Hill Camp for training, where he became the gun No. 2, whose job it was to feed ammunition belts through the gun; Percy Black was No. 1 and the pair soon became firm friends.[11]
On 21 November, the battalion entrained for Fremantle, boarding troopships headed for Melbourne; it was there that the four battalions combined to form the 4th Brigade under the command of Colonel John Monash.[12] After completing their basic training in Victoria, the brigade left Port Melbourne aboard Troopship A40, Ceramic on 26 December. After a brief stop at Albany, Western Australia, they arrived in Egypt in early February 1915. The brigade marched from Alexandria to Heliopolis as part of the New Zealand and Australian Division of Major General Alexander Godley.[13]
[edit]Gallipoli
Further information: Gallipoli Campaign
The Allied commanders planned to defeat Turkey and force a supply route through to Russia via the Bosporus and the Black Sea. As such they planned a land invasion on the Gallipoli Peninsula. On the afternoon of 25 April 1915, Murray's 16th Battalion landed at Ari Burnu, Gallipoli.[14] Setting their machine gun on Pope's Hill, Black and Murray fired their gun throughout the afternoon and into the night.[15] The following day, the battalion's two machine gun crews sniped at the Turkish soldiers on Russell's Top, and Murray and his gunner continued fighting during the counterattack on 26–27 April, despite being wounded.[16]


Second Lieutenant Murray, Gallipoli 1915
Promoted to lance corporal on 12 May,[16] Murray was evacuated to Egypt eighteen days later, due to a gunshot wound to his right knee. His knee soon stiffened and he was posted to a hospital ship set to return to Australia. Murray, however, had other ideas and made his way to the wharf at Alexandria where he boarded a transport bound for Gallipoli.[17] Arriving at the peninsula on 3 July, both Murray and Black received the Distinguished Conduct Medal for their actions between 9–31 May,[18] during which time they tirelessly manned their machine gun, "inflict[ing] serious losses upon the enemy".[19] Murray was again wounded on 8 August when the machine gun section of the 4th Brigade covered the withdrawal after the attack on Hill 971. On 13 August, he was promoted to sergeant, commissioned as a second lieutenant and transferred to the 13th Battalion.[16]
Murray was again evacuated to Egypt on 26 September due to dysentery. After nearly six weeks in the 2nd Australian General Hospital at Ghezireh, he rejoined the 13th Battalion at Gallipoli on 7 December, before leaving for the last time in the Allied evacuation later that month.[20]
Returning to Egypt, the AIF expanded and was reorganised; the 13th Battalion was split and provided experienced soldiers for the 45th Battalion, while the 4th Brigade was combined with the 12th and 13th Brigades to form the 4th Australian Division.[21] Murray was promoted to lieutenant on 20 January 1916, and then to captain on 1 March.[16]
[edit]Western Front: June 1916 to April 1917
On 1 June 1916, the 13th Battalion embarked at Alexandria for Marseilles, France, before being deployed to the Western Front. In mid-June, the battalion moved into trenches at Bois Grenier near Armentieres, and on 13 July they relocated to Bailleul, in time for the Battle of the Somme.[22]
On 29 August, Murray commanded A Company—which consisted of fewer than one hundred men—in a successful attack that captured Mouquet Farm under heavy fire. His men repelled four German counterattacks before he ordered them to withdraw. He remained in command until the next morning, when he fainted from loss of blood from two wounds he had sustained during the action.[23] Murray was awarded the Distinguished Service Order for his service during the action, an event that was published in a supplement of the London Gazette dated 14 November 1916.[24] He was later evacuated to England aboard the hospital ship Asturias, and admitted to the 4th General Hospital, London, where he was to share a ward with Albert Jacka and Percy Black, who were recovering from wounds received at Poziéres and Mouquet Farm respectively.[25][26] After nearly six weeks of recuperation, he returned to the 13th Battalion in France on 19 October.[27]
Following a period of patrols and trench raids, the 13th was relieved by the 5th Battalion on 6 December, and marched back to Ribemont, where Murray was granted leave to England. On 4 January 1917, he was Mentioned in Despatches.[28] The battalion returned to the front in February, relieving the 15th Battalion at Gueudecourt. On 4 February, the battalion's commanding officer received the order to attack Stormy Trench; it was during this action that Murray would earn his Victoria Cross.[29]
On the night of 4–5 February 1917, the 13th Battalion—with Murray commanding A Company—attacked the German position at Stormy Trench. Preceded by a heavy artillery barrage,[30] A Company seized the right of the position after overcoming stiff resistance,[31] consolidating their gains by setting up a makeshift barricade.[16] The Germans counterattacked, prompting Murray to send an SOS signal to the artillery officer, calling for more support. Although repulsed, the Germans counterattacked twice more. On the third attack, Murray organised a twenty-man bombing party and led them in a charge against their attackers, pushing them back to their original start line.[30] On another occasion when the company lost some ground, Murray rallied his men and retook it. Between midnight and 03:00, the company maintained spasmodic bombing, repelling further assaults with the aid of artillery support. By 20:00 on 5 February, the 16th Battalion relieved Murray's company, which had only 48 survivors from the 140 who had begun the attack.[31]
The full citation for Murray's Victoria Cross appeared in a supplement to the London Gazette on 10 March 1917, reading:[32]
War Office, 10th March, 1917
His Majesty the KING has been graciously pleased to approve of the award of the Victoria Cross to the undermentioned Officer and Non-Commissioned Officer: -
Capt. Henry William Murray, D.S.O., Aus. infy.
For most conspicuous bravery when in command of the right flank company in attack. He led his company to the assault with great skill and courage, and the position was quickly captured. Fighting of a very severe nature followed, and three heavy counter-attacks were beaten back, these successes being due to Captain Murray's wonderful work.
Throughout the night his company suffered heavy casualties through concentrated enemy shell fire, and on one occasion gave ground for a short way. This gallant officer rallied his command and saved the situation by sheer valour.
He made his presence felt throughout the line, encouraging his men, heading bombing parties, leading bayonet charges, and carrying wounded to places of safety.
His magnificent example inspired his men throughout.


Major Murray is presented with a Bar to his DSO by General Birdwood.
In April 1917, the battalion relocated to Bullecourt in preparation for an attack on the Hindenburg Line. On the night of 11 April, seven battalions of the 4th Australian Division assembled for the advance,[31] which was launched at 04:30.[33] Murray's company seized a section of German trench, but were quickly isolated.[31] By 07:00, ammunition was running low and casualties were high. Murray sent for artillery support, but conflicting messages meant that it was not provided, so the Australians were forced to withdraw.[34] During the action, the 4th Division lost 2,339 of the 3,000 men that it had committed, with 1170 captured as prisoners of war.[35] Among the dead was Percy Black, who had been killed while trying to find a gap in the barbwire surrounding the German trenches.[36] Murray was awarded a Bar to his Distinguished Service Order for his efforts during the battle,[37] and was promoted to temporary major.[38] He was later informed by General Birdwood that had the attack at Bullecourt been successful, he would have instead been awarded a Bar to his Victoria Cross.[39]
[edit]Western Front, April 1917 to repatriation, March 1920
After Bullecourt, the 4th Brigade withdrew to Ribemont, where reinforcements brought it up to strength. During this period, Murray oversaw musketry training before being granted convalescent leave to London in May. While in the capital, he was decorated with his Victoria Cross and Distinguished Service Order by King George V in Hyde Park on 2 June 1917.[40] Promoted major on 12 July, he rejoined his battalion later in the month, and during the 4th Brigade's advance to the Hindenburg Line over subsequent months, was involved in actions at Messines, Ploegstreert Wood, Menin Road, Polygon Wood, Broodseinde, Poelcappelle and Passchendaele.[41] For his actions at Passchendaele, Murray garnered a mention in Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig's dispatch of 7 November 1917.[42]
Following Passchendaele, the 4th Brigade spent three months in reserve. Murray became second in command of the 13th Battalion, frequently assuming temporary command of the unit while the commanding officer was absent. Granted leave to Paris from 12 January to 2 February 1918,[43] he was promoted to temporary lieutenant colonel on 15 March and assumed command of the 4th Machine Gun Battalion.[44] Commanding the unit during the German Spring Offensive,[45] Murray's rank was confirmed on 24 May.[44]
On 25 June, Murray attended a conference at 4th Divisional Headquarters to discuss a proposed attack on Hamel. Having submitted a plan for the use of machine guns in the battle, five extra sections were attached to Murray's battalion. The battle commenced on 4 July, and over the period of two days, the 4th Machine Gun Battalion fired 373,000 rounds of small arms ammunition, suffering 33 casualties.[46] On 3 August, he attended another divisional conference regarding the planned attack near Amiens scheduled for 8 August. Lieutenant General John Monash's instructions called for several of the 4th Machine Gun Battalion's companies to be moved forward by Mark V tanks, accompanying different units during the battle.[47] At the end of the three-day action, German General Erich Ludendorff described the Allied success as "the black day of the German Army in this war".[21]


Lieutenant Colonel Harry Murray c.1920
From 23 September to 3 October 1918, Murray was seconded to the Headquarters of the United States II Corps as a liaison officer with the 27th Division. The 27th Division, along with the 30th Division, had been attached to Lieutenant General Monash's Corps for the assault on the Bellicourt Tunnel of the Hindenburg Line.[48] During his service with the Americans, Murray was recommended for the United States' Distinguished Service Medal by the commander of the 27th, Major General John F. O'Ryan.[49] The Distinguished Service Medal is the highest non-valorous military and civilian decoration of the United States military, and in General O'Ryan's recommendation he stated that Murray's "... knowledge, activity and fearlessness ... assisted materially in the control of the attacking forces".[49]
The battle alongside the Americans was Murray's last of the war, as the Australians were placed in reserve in early October before the signing of the Armistice on 11 November 1918.[50] On 3 January 1919, Murray was awarded the French Croix de Guerre[51] for his service as commander of the 4th Machine Gun Battalion from 23 March to 24 April and 2–7 August 1918.[52] On 30 May 1919, he was awarded a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George[53] for his command of the 4th Machine Gun Battalion, the recommendation of which particularly citing his success during attacks on the Hindenburg Line.[54] Murray's final honour came on 11 July 1919, when he was Mentioned in Despatches for the fourth time,[55] having received his third mention on 31 December 1918.[56]
From June to September 1919, Murray—along with fellow Australian Victoria Cross recipient William Donovan Joynt—led parties of AIF members on a tour of the farming districts of Britain and Denmark to study agricultural methods under the education schemes.[35] After touring through France and Belgium, he left England on 19 November 1919 aboard the Orient Line transport, Ormonde, along with Generals Birdwood and Monash. A month later, a large crowd celebrated the arrival of the two generals and Murray at the docks in Fremantle. Attempting to evade further fanfare, Murray quietly travelled to northern Tasmania and then to his sister's house in Launceston.[57] He was discharged from the AIF on 9 March 1920.[44]
[edit]Later life

After his discharge, Murray moved north, buying a grazing property in south-eastern Queensland. On 13 October 1921, he married estate agent Constance Sophia Cameron at Bollon.[16] The marriage was an unhappy one, and the pair separated in 1925 when Murray went to New Zealand. On 11 November 1927, with Constance Murray as petitioner, a decree nisi with costs against Henry Murray was granted on the grounds of desertion. Nine days later, at the Auckland Registrar's Office, Murray married Ellen Perdon "Nell" Cameron; Constance's niece.[58] The couple returned to Queensland, and in April 1928 Murray bought Glenlyon station, Richmond, a 74,000 acre (29,947 ha) grazing property, where he lived for the rest of his life.[16]
The Murrays had two children. Their son Douglas, born in 1930, was named after Lieutenant Colonel Douglas Grey Marks, the commanding officer of the 13th Battalion from 1917 to 1918. In 1934, Nell gave birth to their second child, a girl named Clementine.[59] Between 1929 and 1939, Murray wrote fifteen articles for Reveille, the magazine of the New South Wales branch of the Returned Sailors and Soldiers Imperial League of Australia (RSL), detailing several of his experiences during the First World War, and praising several of his comrades.[60]
On 21 July 1939, with the Second World War looming, Murray volunteered for military service and was appointed as commanding officer of the 26th (Militia) Battalion, 11th Brigade, based in Townsville; he was mobilised for full-time service on 21 October 1941. Murray's second-in-command of the unit during this time was Major Edgar Towner, who had additionally been decorated with the Victoria Cross in 1918.[61] The 26th became an Australian Imperial Force unit in 1942, and in August Murray was removed from his post by General Sir Thomas Blamey, Commander in Chief Australian Military Forces, on the grounds of his advancing age. He was instead appointed to command the 23rd Queensland Regiment, Volunteer Defence Corps, which he led until his retirement from active duty on 8 February 1944.[62][63]
With the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, wool prices soared and Murray earned a large income from wool sales, allowing him to regularly travel across Australia. Taking a trip to Brisbane in 1954, he met Queen Elizabeth II during her Royal Tour of Australia. Despite rarely attending Anzac Day services or functions for Victoria Cross recipients, Murray and his wife travelled to London in 1956 to commemorate the centenary of the Victoria Cross.[64] Following the ceremonies, the Murrays spent five weeks on a motor tour of England and Scotland, before visiting Switzerland and France. However, Murray refused to revisit the battlefields.[65]


Henry Murray's grave
On 6 January 1966, Nell was driving the family car with Harry as a passenger; they were going to the south coast of Queensland for a holiday. A tire blew out and the car rolled on the Leichhardt Highway near Condamine. Murray was taken to Miles District Hospital with broken ribs. He had suffered heart trouble for some time, and the shock of the accident is believed to have caused his death the following day. Murray was interred at Mount Thompson Crematorium with full military honours after a funeral service at St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Brisbane.[66]
On 24 February 2006 in Evandale, Tasmania, Governor-General Michael Jeffery unveiled a statue of Murray by sculptor Peter Corlett. This tribute was facilitated by a small group of volunteers who raised AU$85,000 in two years.[67] The Henry Murray ward at Hollywood Private Hospital has been named in his honour.[68]

Holy Grail
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Holy Grail (disambiguation).
"Grail" and "Grail Quest" redirect here. For other uses, see Grail (disambiguation) and Grail Quest (disambiguation).


How at the Castle of Corbin a Maiden Bare in the Sangreal and Foretold the Achievements of Galahad: illustration by Arthur Rackham, 1917
According to Christian mythology, the Holy Grail was the dish, plate, or cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper, said to possess miraculous powers. The connection of Joseph of Arimathea with the Grail legend dates from Robert de Boron's Joseph d'Arimathie (late 12th century) in which Joseph receives the Grail from an apparition of Jesus and sends it with his followers to Great Britain; building upon this theme, later writers recounted how Joseph used the Grail to catch Christ's blood while interring him and that in Britain he founded a line of guardians to keep it safe. The quest for the Holy Grail makes up an important segment of the Arthurian cycle, appearing first in works by Chrétien de Troyes.[1] The legend may combine Christian lore with a Celtic myth of a cauldron endowed with special powers.
The development of the Grail legend has been traced in detail by cultural historians: It is a legend which first came together in the form of written romances, deriving perhaps from some pre-Christian folklore hints, in the later 12th and early 13th centuries. The early Grail romances centered on Percival and were woven into the more general Arthurian fabric. Some of the Grail legend is interwoven with legends of the Holy Chalice.
Contents [hide]
1 Origins
1.1 Grail
1.2 Early forms
1.3 Etymology
2 Beginnings in literature
2.1 Chrétien de Troyes
2.2 Robert de Boron
2.3 Other early literature
3 Conceptions of the Grail
4 Later legend
5 Modern interpretations
5.1 Modern retellings
5.2 Non-fiction
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
[edit]Origins

[edit]Grail
The Grail plays a different role everywhere it appears, but in most versions of the legend the hero must prove himself worthy to be in its presence. In the early tales, Percival's immaturity prevents him from fulfilling his destiny when he first encounters the Grail, and he must grow spiritually and mentally before he can locate it again. In later tellings the Grail is a symbol of God's grace, available to all but only fully realized by those who prepare themselves spiritually, like the saintly Galahad.
[edit]Early forms
There are two veins of thought concerning the Grail's origin. The first, championed by Roger Sherman Loomis, Alfred Nutt, and Jessie Weston, holds that it derived from early Celtic myth and folklore. Loomis traced a number of parallels between Medieval Welsh literature and Irish material and the Grail romances, including similarities between the Mabinogion's Bran the Blessed and the Arthurian Fisher King, and between Bran's life-restoring cauldron and the Grail. Other legends featured magical platters or dishes that symbolize otherworldly power or test the hero's worth. Sometimes the items generate a never-ending supply of food, sometimes they can raise the dead. Sometimes they decide who the next king should be, as only the true sovereign could hold them.
On the other hand, some scholars believe the Grail began as a purely Christian symbol. For example, Joseph Goering of the University of Toronto has identified sources for Grail imagery in 12th century wall paintings from churches in the Catalan Pyrenees (now mostly removed to the Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya, Barcelona), which present unique iconic images of the Virgin Mary holding a bowl that radiates tongues of fire, images that predate the first literary account by Chrétien de Troyes. Goering argues that they were the original inspiration for the Grail legend.[2][3]
Another recent theory holds that the earliest stories that cast the Grail in a Christian light were meant to promote the Roman Catholic sacrament of the Holy Communion. Although the practice of Holy Communion was first alluded to in the Christian Bible and defined by theologians in the first centuries AD, it was around the time of the appearance of the first Christianized Grail literature that the Roman church was beginning to add more ceremony and mysticism around this particular sacrament. Thus, the first Grail stories may have been celebrations of a renewal in this traditional sacrament.[4] This theory has some basis in the fact that the Grail legends are a phenomenon of the Western church (see below).
Most scholars today accept that both Christian and Celtic traditions contributed to the legend's development, though many of the early Celtic-based arguments are largely discredited (Loomis himself came to reject much of Weston and Nutt's work). The general view is that the central theme of the Grail is Christian, even when not explicitly religious, but that much of the setting and imagery of the early romances is drawn from Celtic material.
[edit]Etymology
The word grial, as it is earliest spelled, appears to be an Old French adaptation of the Latin gradalis, meaning a dish brought to the table in different stages of a meal. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, after the cycle of Grail romances was well established, late medieval writers came up with a false etymology for sangréal, an alternative name for "Holy Grail." In Old French, san graal or san gréal means "Holy Grail" and sang réal means "royal blood"; later writers played on this pun. Since then, "Sangreal" is sometimes employed to lend a medievalizing air in referring to the Holy Grail. This connection with royal blood bore fruit in a modern bestseller linking many historical conspiracy theories (see below).
[edit]Beginnings in literature

[edit]Chrétien de Troyes
The Grail is first featured in Perceval, le Conte du Graal (The Story of the Grail) by Chrétien de Troyes, who claims he was working from a source book given to him by his patron, Count Philip of Flanders. In this incomplete poem, dated sometime between 1180 and 1191, the object has not yet acquired the implications of holiness it would have in later works. While dining in the magical abode of the Fisher King, Perceval witnesses a wondrous procession in which youths carry magnificent objects from one chamber to another, passing before him at each course of the meal. First comes a young man carrying a bleeding lance, then two boys carrying candelabras. Finally, a beautiful young girl emerges bearing an elaborately decorated graal, or "grail."
Chrétien refers to his object not as "The Grail" but as un graal, showing the word was used, in its earliest literary context, as a common noun. For Chrétien the grail was a wide, somewhat deep dish or bowl, interesting because it contained not a pike, salmon or lamprey, as the audience may have expected for such a container, but a single Mass wafer which provided sustenance for the Fisher King’s crippled father. Perceval, who had been warned against talking too much, remains silent through all of this, and wakes up the next morning alone. He later learns that if he had asked the appropriate questions about what he saw, he would have healed his maimed host, much to his honor. The story of the Wounded King's mystical fasting is not unique; several saints were said to have lived without food besides communion, for instance Saint Catherine of Genoa. This may imply that Chrétien intended the Mass wafer to be the significant part of the ritual, and the Grail to be a mere prop.
[edit]Robert de Boron
Though Chrétien’s account is the earliest and most influential of all Grail texts, it was in the work of Robert de Boron that the Grail truly became the "Holy Grail" and assumed the form most familiar to modern readers. In his verse romance Joseph d’Arimathie, composed between 1191 and 1202, Robert tells the story of Joseph of Arimathea acquiring the chalice of the Last Supper to collect Christ’s blood upon His removal from the cross. Joseph is thrown in prison where Christ visits him and explains the mysteries of the blessed cup. Upon his release Joseph gathers his in-laws and other followers and travels to the west, and founds a dynasty of Grail keepers that eventually includes Perceval.
[edit]Other early literature


Parsifal before the Castle of the Grail - inspired by Richard Wagner's opera Parsifal - painted in Weimar Germany 1928 by Hans Werner Schmidt (1859-1950)
After this point, Grail literature divides into two classes. The first concerns King Arthur’s knights visiting the Grail castle or questing after the object; the second concerns the Grail’s history in the time of Joseph of Arimathea.
The nine most important works from the first group are:
The Perceval of Chrétien de Troyes.
Four continuations of Chrétien’s poem, by authors of differing vision and talent, designed to bring the story to a close.
The German Parzival by Wolfram von Eschenbach, which adapted at least the holiness of Robert’s Grail into the framework of Chrétien’s story.
The Didot Perceval, named after the manuscript’s former owner, and purportedly a prosification of Robert de Boron’s sequel to Joseph d’Arimathie.
The Welsh romance Peredur, generally included in the Mabinogion, likely at least indirectly founded on Chrétien's poem but including very striking differences from it, preserving as it does elements of pre-Christian traditions such as the Celtic cult of the head.
Perlesvaus, called the "least canonical" Grail romance because of its very different character.
The German Diu Crône (The Crown), in which Gawain, rather than Perceval, achieves the Grail.
The Lancelot section of the vast Vulgate Cycle, which introduces the new Grail hero, Galahad.
The Queste del Saint Graal, another part of the Vulgate Cycle, concerning the adventures of Galahad and his achievement of the Grail.
Of the second class there are:
Robert de Boron’s Joseph d’Arimathie,
The Estoire del Saint Graal, the first part of the Vulgate Cycle (but written after Lancelot and the Queste), based on Robert’s tale but expanding it greatly with many new details.
Though all these works have their roots in Chrétien, several contain pieces of tradition not found in Chrétien which are possibly derived from earlier sources.
[edit]Conceptions of the Grail



Galahad, Bors, and Percival achieve the Grail
The Grail was considered a bowl or dish when first described by Chrétien de Troyes. Other authors had their own ideas; Robert de Boron portrayed it as the vessel of the Last Supper, and Peredur had no Grail per se, presenting the hero instead with a platter containing his kinsman's bloody, severed head. In Parzival, Wolfram von Eschenbach, citing the authority of a certain (probably fictional) Kyot the Provençal, claimed the Grail was a stone that fell from Heaven (called lapsit exillis), and had been the sanctuary of the Neutral Angels who took neither side during Lucifer's rebellion. The authors of the Vulgate Cycle used the Grail as a symbol of divine grace. Galahad, illegitimate son of Lancelot and Elaine, the world's greatest knight and the Grail Bearer at the castle of Corbenic, is destined to achieve the Grail, his spiritual purity making him a greater warrior than even his illustrious father. Galahad and the interpretation of the Grail involving him were picked up in the 15th century by Sir Thomas Malory in Le Morte d'Arthur, and remain popular today.
Various notions of the Holy Grail are currently widespread in Western society (especially British, French and American), popularized through numerous medieval and modern works (see below) and linked with the predominantly Anglo-French (but also with some German influence) cycle of stories about King Arthur and his knights. Because of this wide distribution, Americans and West Europeans sometimes assume that the Grail idea is universally well known. The stories of the Grail are totally absent from the folklore of those countries that were and are Eastern Orthodox (whether Arabs, Slavs, Romanians, or Greeks). This is true of all Arthurian myths, which were not well known east of Germany until the present-day Hollywood retellings. Nor has the Grail been as popular a subject in some predominantly Catholic areas, such as Spain and Latin America, as it has been elsewhere. The notions of the Grail, its importance, and prominence, are a set of ideas that are essentially local and particular, being linked with Catholic or formerly Catholic locales, Celtic mythology and Anglo-French medieval storytelling. The contemporary wide distribution of these ideas is due to the huge influence of the pop culture of countries where the Grail Myth was prominent in the Middle Ages.
[edit]Later legend



One of the supposed Holy Grails in Valencia, Spain
Belief in the Grail and interest in its potential whereabouts has never ceased. Ownership has been attributed to various groups (including the Knights Templar, probably because they were at the peak of their influence around the time that Grail stories started circulating in the 12th and 13th centuries).
There are cups claimed to be the Grail in several churches, for instance the Saint Mary of Valencia Cathedral, which contains an artifact, the Holy Chalice, supposedly taken by Saint Peter to Rome in the first century, and then to Huesca in Spain by Saint Lawrence in the 3rd century. According to legend the monastery of San Juan de la Peña, located at the south-west of Jaca, in the province of Huesca, Spain, protected the chalice of the Last Supper from the Islamic invaders of the Iberian Peninsula. Archaeologists say the artifact is a 1st century Middle Eastern stone vessel, possibly from Antioch, Syria (now Turkey); its history can be traced to the 11th century, and it presently rests atop an ornate stem and base, made in the Medieval era of alabaster, gold, and gemstones. It was the official papal chalice for many popes, and has been used by many others, most recently by Pope Benedict XVI, on July 9, 2006.[5] The emerald chalice at Genoa, which was obtained during the Crusades at Caesarea Maritima at great cost, has been less championed as the Holy Grail since an accident on the road, while it was being returned from Paris after the fall of Napoleon, revealed that the emerald was green glass.
In Wolfram von Eschenbach's telling, the Grail was kept safe at the castle of Munsalvaesche (mons salvationis), entrusted to Titurel, the first Grail King. Some, not least the monks of Montserrat, have identified the castle with the real sanctuary of Montserrat in Catalonia, Spain. Other stories claim that the Grail is buried beneath Rosslyn Chapel or lies deep in the spring at Glastonbury Tor. Still other stories claim that a secret line of hereditary protectors keep the Grail, or that it was hidden by the Templars in Oak Island, Nova Scotia's famous "Money Pit", while local folklore in Accokeek, Maryland says that it was brought to the town by a closeted priest aboard Captain John Smith's ship. Turn of the century accounts state that Irish partisans of the Clan Dhuir (O'Dwyer, Dwyer) transported the Grail to the United States during the 19th Century and the Grail was kept by their descendents in secrecy in a small abbey in the upper-Northwest (now believed to be Southern Minnesota). [6]
[edit]Modern interpretations

[edit]Modern retellings


The Damsel of the Sanct Grael by Dante Gabriel Rossetti
The story of the Grail and of the quest to find it became increasingly popular in the nineteenth century, referred to in literature such as Alfred Tennyson's Arthurian cycle the Idylls of the King. The combination of hushed reverence, chromatic harmonies and sexualized imagery in Richard Wagner's late opera Parsifal gave new significance to the grail theme, for the first time associating the grail – now periodically producing blood – directly with female fertility.[7] The high seriousness of the subject was also epitomized in Dante Gabriel Rossetti's painting (illustrated), in which a woman modelled by Jane Morris holds the Grail with one hand, while adopting a gesture of blessing with the other. Other artists, including George Frederic Watts and William Dyce also portrayed grail subjects.
The Grail later turned up in movies; it debuted in a silent Parsifal. In The Light of Faith (1922), Lon Chaney attempted to steal it, for the finest of reasons. The Silver Chalice, a novel about the Grail by Thomas B. Costain was made into a 1954 movie (in which Paul Newman debuted), that is considered notably bad by several critics, including Newman himself. Lancelot du Lac (1974) is Robert Bresson's gritty retelling. In vivid contrast, Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) (adapted in 2004 as the stage production Spamalot) deflated all pseudo-Arthurian posturings. Excalibur attempted to restore a more traditional heroic representation of an Arthurian tale, in which the Grail is revealed as a mystical means to revitalise Arthur himself, and of the barren land to which his depressive sickness is connected. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and The Fisher King place the quest in modern settings, one a modern-day treasure hunt, the other robustly self-parodying.
The Grail has been used as a theme in fantasy, historical fiction and science fiction; a quest for the Grail appears in Bernard Cornwell's series of books The Grail Quest, set during The Hundred Years War. Michael Moorcock's fantasy novel The War Hound and the World's Pain depicts a supernatural Grail quest set in the era of the Thirty Years' War, and science fiction has taken the Quest into interstellar space, figuratively in Samuel R. Delany's 1968 novel Nova, and literally on the television shows Babylon 5 and Stargate SG-1 (as the "Sangraal"). Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Mists of Avalon has the grail as one of four objects symbolizing the four Elements: the Grail itself (water), the sword Excalibur (fire), a dish (earth), and a spear or wand (air). The grail features heavily in the novels of Peter David's Knight trilogy, which depict King Arthur reappearing in modern-day New York City, in particular the second and third novels, One Knight Only and Fall of Knight. The grail is central in many modern Arthurian works, including Charles Williams's novel War in Heaven and his two collections of poems about Taliessin, Taliessin Through Logres and Region of the Summer Stars, and in feminist author Rosalind Miles' Child of the Holy Grail. The Grail also features heavily in Umberto Eco's 2000 novel Baudolino. In King and Emperor, the final volume of Harry Harrison's 1990s trilogy The Hammer and the Cross, the name "grail" is explained to be a corruption of "graduale", Latin for ladder, and the Holy Grail is discovered, being the ladder which was used to remove Jesus' body from the cross and on which the body was carried away. The story further "reveals" that Jesus survived the crucification, and went on to live a life and father children, as well as writing a repressed Gospel. Fantasy and historical novelist Stephen R. Lawhead wrote a five-piece Arthurian epic in the 1980s and 90s entitled The Pendragon Cycle, followed by a related but stand-alone Arthurian novel, Avalon (1999), set in the near future of the twenty-first century.
[edit]Non-fiction
The Grail has also been treated in works of non-fiction, which generally seek to interpret its meaning in novel ways. Such a tack was taken by psychologists Emma Jung and Marie-Louise von Franz, who utilized analytical psychology to interpret the Grail as a series of symbols in their book The Grail Legend.[8] This type of interpretation had previously been utilized, in less detail, by Carl Jung, and was later invoked by Joseph Campbell.[8]
Other works, generally of dubious historical value, attempt to connect the Grail to conspiracy theories and esoteric traditions. In The Sign and the Seal, Graham Hancock asserts that the Grail story is a coded description of the stone tablets stored in the Ark of the Covenant. For the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, who assert that their research ultimately reveals that Jesus may not have died on the cross, but lived to wed Mary Magdalene and father children whose Merovingian lineage continues today, the Grail is a mere sideshow: they say it is a reference to Mary Magdalene as the receptacle of Jesus' bloodline.[9][10]
Such works have been the inspiration for a number of popular modern fiction novels. The best known is Dan Brown's bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code, which, like Holy Blood, Holy Grail, is based on the idea that the real Grail is not a cup but the womb and later the earthly remains of Mary Magdalene (again cast as Jesus' wife), plus a set of ancient documents telling the "true" story of Jesus, his teachings and descendants. In Brown's novel, it is hinted that Jesus was merely a mortal man with strong ideals, and that the Grail was long buried beneath Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland, but that in recent decades its guardians had it relocated to a secret chamber embedded in the floor beneath the Inverted Pyramid near the Louvre Museum. The latter location, like Rosslyn Chapel, has never been mentioned in real Grail lore. Yet such was the public interest in this fictionalized Grail that for a while, the museum roped off the exact location mentioned by Brown, lest visitors inflict any damage in a more-or-less serious attempt to access the supposed hidden chamber

War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about war in general; for other uses of the term, see war (disambiguation) and The War.
"Warring" redirects here. For the American boxer, see James Warring. For New Zealand football player, see Lynne Warring.
Warfare

Military history
Eras[show]
Battlespace[show]
Weapons[show]
Tactics[show]
Strategy[show]
Organization[show]
Logistics[show]
Lists[show]
Portal v • d • e
War is a reciprocated, armed conflict, between two or more non-congruous entities, aimed at reorganising a subjectively designed, geo-politically desired result. In his book, On War, Prussian military theoretician Carl Von Clausewitz calls war the "continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means."[1]
War is an interaction in which two or more opposing forces have a “struggle of wills”.[2] The term is also used as a metaphor for non-military conflict, such as in the example of Class war.
War is not necessarily considered to be the same as occupation, murder, or genocide because of the reciprocal nature of the violent struggle, and the organized nature of the units involved.[3]
A civil war is either a dispute between parties within the same nation (such as in the English Civil War), or else a dispute between two nations that were created out of one formerly-united country (such as in the American Civil War). A proxy war is a war that results when two powers use third parties as substitutes for fighting each other directly.
War is also a cultural entity, and its practice is not linked to any single type of political organization or society. Rather, as discussed by John Keegan in his History Of Warfare, war is a universal phenomenon whose form and scope is defined by the society that wages it. [4] The conduct of war extends along a continuum, from the almost universal tribal warfare that began well before recorded human history, to wars between city states, nations, or empires.
In the organised military sense, a group of combatants and their support is called an army on land, a navy at sea, and an air force in the air. Wars may be conducted simultaneously in one or more different theatres. Within each theatre, there may be one or more consecutive military campaigns.
A military campaign includes not only fighting but also intelligence, troop movements, supplies, propaganda, and other components. A period of continuous intense conflict is traditionally called a battle, although this terminology is not always applied to conflicts involving aircraft, missiles or bombs alone, in the absence of ground troops or naval forces. Also many other actions may be undertaken by military forces during a war, this could include weapons research, prison internment, assassination, occupation, and in some cases genocide may occur.
As the strategic and tactical aspects of warfare are always changing, theories and doctrines relating to warfare are often reformulated before, during, and after every major war. Carl Von Clausewitz said, 'Every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.'[5].
War is not limited to the human species. Ants engage in massive intra-species conflicts which might be termed warfare, and chimpanzee packs will engage each other in tribe like warfare. It is theorized that other species also engage in similar behavior, although this is not well documented. [6][7][8]
Contents [hide]
1 Etymology
2 History of warfare
3 Theories behind the existence of warfare
3.1 Tradeoff analysis theories
3.2 Behavioral theories
3.3 Evolutionary psychology
3.4 Sociological theories
3.5 Demographic theories
3.5.1 Malthusian theories
3.5.2 Youth bulge theory
3.6 Rationalist theories
3.7 Economic theories
3.8 Marxist theories
3.9 Political science theories
3.10 Objectivist view
4 Conduct of wars
4.1 Behaviour & conduct in war
4.2 Types of warfare
4.3 Military posture
4.4 Warfare environment
5 Effects of war
5.1 On soldiers
5.2 On civilians
5.3 On the economy
5.3.1 World War Two
6 Morality of war
7 Factors ending a war
8 List of wars by death toll
9 See also
10 References
11 Bibliography
12 External links
[edit]Etymology

From late Old English (c.1050), wyrre, werre, from Old North French werre "war" (Fr. guerre), from Frankish *werra, from Proto-Germanic *werso (Compare with Old Saxon werran, Old high German werran, German verwirren "to confuse, perplex"). Cognates suggest the original sense was "to bring into confusion."
There was no common Germanic word for "war" at the dawn of historical times. Spanish, Portuguese, Italian guerra are from the same source; Romanic peoples turned to Germanic for a word to avoid Latin "bellum" because its form tended to merge with bello- "beautiful."[9]
[edit]History of warfare

Main article: History of war

This section is missing citations or needs footnotes. Please help add inline citations to guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (January 2009)


Battle of White Mountain, 1620, an early battle in the Thirty Years' War.


Napoleon Bonaparte retreating from Moscow after a disastrous French invasion of Russia.


Soldiers from the U.S. Army 89th Infantry Division cross the Rhine River in assault boats, 1945.
Before the dawn of civilization, war likely consisted of small-scale raiding. One half of the people found in a Nubian cemetery dating to as early as 12,000 years ago had died of violence.[10] Since the rise of the state some 5,000 years ago,[11] military activity has occurred over much of the globe. The advent of gunpowder and the acceleration of technological advances led to modern warfare.
The Human Security Report 2005 documented a significant decline in the number and severity of armed conflicts since the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s. However, the evidence examined in the 2008 edition of the Center for International Development and Conflict Management's "Peace and Conflict" study indicated that the overall decline in conflicts had stalled.[12]
Motivations for war may be different for those ordering the war than for those undertaking the war. For a state to prosecute a war it must have the support of its leadership, its military forces, and its people. For example, in the Third Punic War,[13] Rome's leaders may have wished to make war with Carthage for the purpose of eliminating a resurgent rival, while the individual soldiers may have been motivated by a wish to make money. Since many people are involved, a war may acquire a life of its own from the confluence of many different motivations.
In Why Nations Go to War, by John G. Stoessinger, the author points out that both sides will claim that morality justifies their fight. He also states that the rationale for beginning a war depends on an overly optimistic assessment of the outcome of hostilities (casualties and costs), and on misperceptions of the enemy's intentions. In War Before Civilization, Lawrence H. Keeley, a professor at the University of Illinois, says that approximately 90–95% of known societies throughout history engaged in at least occasional warfare, and many fought constantly.[14]
In Western Europe, since the late 18th century, more than 150 conflicts and about 600 battles had taken place.[15]
[edit]Theories behind the existence of warfare

[edit]Tradeoff analysis theories
Wars happen when a group of people or an organization perceives the benefits that can be obtained to be greater than the cost. This can happen for a variety of reasons:
To protect national pride by preventing the loss of territory
To protect livelihood by preventing the loss of resources or by declaring independence
To inflict punishment on the "wrongdoer", especially when one country is stronger than the other and can effectively deal out the punishment.[citation needed]
[edit]Behavioral theories
Psychologists such as E.F.M. Durban and John Bowlby have argued that human beings are inherently violent.[16] This aggressiveness is fueled by displacement and projection where a person transfers their grievances into bias and hatred against other races, religions, nations or ideologies. By this theory the nation state preserves order in the local society while creating an outlet for aggression through warfare. If war is innate to human nature, as is presupposed and predetermined by many psychological theories, then there is little hope of ever escaping it.
The Italian psychoanalyst Franco Fornari, a follower of Melanie Klein, thought that war was the paranoid or projective “elaboration” of mourning.[17] Fornari thought that war and violence develop out of our “love need”: our wish to preserve and defend the sacred object to which we are attached, namely our early mother and our fusion with her. For the adult, nations are the sacred objects that generate warfare. Fornari focused upon sacrifice as the essence of war: the astonishing willingness of human beings to die for their country, to give over their bodies to their nation.
While these theories may have some general explanatory value about why war exists, they do not explain when or how they occur. Nor do they explain the existence of certain human cultures completely devoid of war.[18] If the innate psychology of the human mind is unchanging, these variations are inconsistent. A solution adapted to this problem by militarists such as Franz Alexander is that peace does not really exist. Periods that are seen as peaceful are actually periods of preparation for a later war or when war is suppressed by a state of great power, such as the Pax Britannica.[19]
An additional problem with theories that rest on the will of the general population, is that in history only a tiny fraction of wars have originated from a desire for war from the general populace.[20] Far more often the general population has been reluctantly drawn into war by its rulers. One psychological theory that looks at the leaders is advanced by Maurice Walsh.[21] He argues that the general populace is more neutral towards war and that wars only occur when leaders with a psychologically abnormal disregard for human life are placed into power. War is caused by leaders that seek war such as Napoleon, Hitler, and Stalin. Such leaders most often come to power in times of crisis when the populace opts for a decisive leader, who then leads the nation to war.
[edit]Evolutionary psychology
A distinct branch of the psychological theories of war are the arguments based on evolutionary psychology. This school tends to see war as an extension of animal behaviour, such as territoriality and competition. Animals are naturally aggressive, and in humans this aggression manifests itself as warfare. However, while war has a natural cause, the development of technology has accelerated human destructiveness to a level that is irrational and damaging to the species. The earliest advocate of this theory was Konrad Lorenz.[22]
These theories have been criticized by scholars such as John G. Kennedy, who argue that the organized, sustained war of humans differs more than just technologically from the territorial fights between animals. Ashley Montagu[23] strongly denies such universalistic instinctual arguments, pointing out that social factors and childhood socialization are important in determining the nature and presence of warfare. Thus while human aggression may be a universal occurrence, warfare is not and would appear to have been a historical invention, associated with certain types of human societies.
[edit]Sociological theories

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)
Sociology has long been very concerned with the origins of war, and many thousands of theories have been advanced, many of them contradictory. Sociology has thus divided into a number of schools. One, the Primat der Innenpolitik (Primacy of Domestic Politics) school based on the works of Eckart Kehr and Hans-Ulrich Wehler, sees war as the product of domestic conditions, with only the target of aggression being determined by international realities. Thus World War I was not a product of international disputes, secret treaties, or the balance of power but a product of the economic, social, and political situation within each of the states involved.
This differs from the traditional Primat der Außenpolitik (Primacy of Foreign Politics) approach of Carl von Clausewitz and Leopold von Ranke that argues it is the decisions of statesmen and the geopolitical situation that leads to peace.
[edit]Demographic theories


Gari Melchers, Mural of War, 1896.
Demographic theories can be grouped into two classes, Malthusian theories and youth bulge theories.
[edit]Malthusian theories
Malthusian theories see expanding population and scarce resources as a source of violent conflict.
Pope Urban II in 1095, on the eve of the First Crusade, wrote, "For this land which you now inhabit, shut in on all sides by the sea and the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; it scarcely furnishes food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage wars, and that many among you perish in civil strife. Let hatred, therefore, depart from among you; let your quarrels end. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from a wicked race, and subject it to yourselves."
This is one of the earliest expressions of what has come to be called the Malthusian theory of war, in which wars are caused by expanding populations and limited resources. Thomas Malthus (1766–1834) wrote that populations always increase until they are limited by war, disease, or famine.
This theory is thought by Malthusians to account for the relative decrease in wars during the past fifty years, especially in the developed world, where advances in agriculture have made it possible to support a much larger population than was formerly the case, and where birth control has dramatically slowed the increase in population.
[edit]Youth bulge theory


Median age by country. A youth bulge is evident for Africa, and to a lesser extent for South and Southeast Asia and Central America.
Youth bulge theory differs significantly from malthusian theories. Its adherents see a combination of large male youth cohorts - as graphically represented as a "youth bulge" in a population pyramid - with a lack of regular, peaceful employment opportunities as a risk pool for violence.
While malthusian theories focus on a disparity between a growing population and available natural resources, youth bulge theory focuses on a disparity between non-inheriting, 'excess' young males and available social positions within the existing social system of division of labour.
Contributors to the development of youth bulge theory include French sociologist Gaston Bouthoul,,[24] U.S. sociologist Jack A. Goldstone,,[25] U.S. political scientist Gary Fuller,,[26][27][28] and German sociologist Gunnar Heinsohn.[29] Samuel Huntington has modified his Clash of Civilizations theory by using youth bulge theory as its foundation:
I don't think Islam is any more violent than any other religions, and I suspect if you added it all up, more people have been slaughtered by Christians over the centuries than by Muslims. But the key factor is the demographic factor. Generally speaking, the people who go out and kill other people are males between the ages of 16 and 30. During the 1960s, 70s and 80s there were high birth rates in the Muslim world, and this has given rise to a huge youth bulge. But the bulge will fade. Muslim birth rates are going down; in fact, they have dropped dramatically in some countries. Islam did spread by the sword originally, but I don't think there is anything inherently violent in Muslim theology."[30]
Youth Bulge theories represent a relatively recent development but seem to have become more influential in guiding U.S. foreign policy and military strategy as both Goldstone and Fuller have acted as consultants to the U.S. Government. CIA Inspector General John L. Helgerson referred to youth bulge theory in his 2002 report "The National Security Implications of Global Demographic Change".[31]
According to Heinsohn, who has proposed youth bulge theory in its most generalized form, a youth bulge occurs when 30 to 40 percent of the males of a nation belong to the "fighting age" cohorts from 15 to 29 years of age. It will follow periods with total fertility rates as high as 4-8 children per woman with a 15-29 year delay.
A total fertility rate of 2.1 children born by a woman during her lifetime represents a situation of in which the son will replace the father, and the daughter will replace the mother. Thus, a total fertility rate of 2.1 represents replacement level, while anything below represents a sub-replacement fertility rate leading to population decline.
Total fertility rates above 2.1 will lead to population growth and to a youth bulge. A total fertility rate of 4-8 children per mother implies 2-4 sons per mother. Consequently, one father has to leave not 1, but 2 to 4 social positions (jobs) to give all his sons a perspective for life, which is usually hard to achieve. Since respectable positions cannot be increased at the same speed as food, textbooks and vaccines, many "angry young men" find themselves in a situation that tends to escalate their adolescent anger into violence: they are
Demographically superfluous,
Might be out of work or stuck in a menial job, and
Often have no access to a legal sex life before a career can earn them enough to provide for a family. See: Hypergamy, Waithood.
The combination of these stress factors according to Heinsohn[32] usually heads for one of six different exits:
Violent Crime
Emigration ("non violent colonization")
Rebellion or putsch
Civil war and/or revolution
Genocide (to take over the positions of the slaughtered)
Conquest (violent colonization, frequently including genocide abroad).
Religions and ideologies are seen as secondary factors that are being used to legitimate violence, but will not lead to violence by themselves if no youth bulge is present. Consequently, youth bulge theorists see both past "Christianist" European colonialism and imperialism and today's "Islamist" civil unrest and terrorism as results of high birth rates producing youth bulges.[33] With the Gaza Strip now being seen as another example of youth-bulge-driven violence, especially if compared to Lebanon which is geographically close, yet remarkably more peaceful.[34]
Among prominent historical events that have been linked to the existence of youth bulges is the role played by the historically large youth cohorts in the rebellion and revolution waves of early modern Europe, including French Revolution of 1789,[35] and the importance of economic depression hitting the largest German youth cohorts ever in explaining the rise of Nazism in Germany in the 1930s.[36] The 1994 Rwandan Genocide has also been analyzed as following a massive youth bulge.[37]
While the implications of population growth have been known since the completion of the National Security Study Memorandum 200 in 1974,[38] neither the U.S. nor the WHO have implemented the recommended measures to control population growth to avert the terrorist threat. Prominent demographer Stephen D. Mumford attributes this to the influence of the Catholic Church.[39]
Youth Bulge theory has been subjected to statistical analysis by the World Bank,[40] Population Action International,[41] and the Berlin Institute for Population and Development.[42] Detailed demographic data for most countries is available at the international database of the United States Census Bureau.[43]
Youth bulge theories have been criticized as leading to racial, gender and age discrimination.[44]
[edit]Rationalist theories
Rationalist theories of war assume that both sides to a potential war are rational, which is to say that each side wants to get the best possible outcome for itself for the least possible loss of life and property to its own side. Given this assumption, if both countries knew in advance how the war would turn out, it would be better for both of them to just accept the post-war outcome without having to actually pay the costs of fighting the war. This is based on the notion, generally agreed to by almost all scholars of war since Carl von Clausewitz, that wars are reciprocal, that all wars require both a decision to attack and also a decision to resist attack. Rationalist theory offers three reasons why some countries cannot find a bargain and instead resort to war: issue indivisibility, information asymmetry with incentive to deceive, and the inability to make credible commitments.[45]
Issue indivisibility occurs when the two parties cannot avoid war by bargaining because the thing over which they are fighting cannot be shared between them, only owned entirely by one side or the other. Religious issues, such as control over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, are more likely to be indivisible than economic issues.
A bigger branch of the theory, advanced by scholars of international relations such as Geoffrey Blainey, is that both sides decide to go to war and one side may have miscalculated.
Some go further and say that there is a problem of information asymmetry with incentives to misrepresent. The two countries may not agree on who would win a war between them, or whether victory would be overwhelming or merely eked out, because each side has military secrets about its own capabilities. They will not avoid the bargaining failure by sharing their secrets, since they cannot trust each other not to lie and exaggerate their strength to extract more concessions. For example, Sweden made efforts to deceive Nazi Germany that it would resist an attack fiercely, partly by playing on the myth of Aryan superiority and by making sure that Hermann Göring only saw elite troops in action, often dressed up as regular soldiers, when he came to visit.
The American decision to enter the Vietnam War was made with the full knowledge that the communist forces would resist them, but did not believe that the guerrillas had the capability to long oppose American forces.
Thirdly, bargaining may fail due to the states' inability to make credible commitments.[46] In this scenario, the two countries might be able to come to a bargain that would avert war if they could stick to it, but the benefits of the bargain will make one side more powerful and lead it to demand even more in the future, so that the weaker side has an incentive to make a stand now.
Rationalist explanations of war can be critiqued on a number of grounds. The assumptions of cost-benefit calculations become dubious in the most extreme genocidal cases of World War II, where the only bargain offered in some cases was infinitely bad. Rationalist theories typically assume that the state acts as a unitary individual, doing what is best for the state as a whole; this is problematic when, for example, the country's leader is beholden to a very small number of people, as in a personalistic dictatorship. Rationalist theory also assumes that the actors are rational, able to accurately assess their likelihood of success or failure, but the proponents of the psychological theories above would disagree.
Rationalist theories are usually explicated with game theory, for example, the Peace War Game, not a wargame as such, rather a simulation of economic decisions underlying war.
[edit]Economic theories
Another school of thought argues that war can be seen as a growth of economic competition in a competitive international system. In this view wars begin as a pursuit of markets for natural resources and for wealth. While this theory has been applied to many conflicts. Such counter arguments become less valid as the increasing mobility of capital and information level the distributions of wealth worldwide, or when considering that it is relative, not absolute, wealth differences that may fuel wars. There are those on the extreme right of the political spectrum who provide support, fascists in particular, by asserting a natural right of the strong to whatever the weak cannot hold by force. Some centrist, capitalist, world leaders, including Presidents of the United States and US Generals, expressed support for an economic view of war.
"Is there any man, is there any woman, let me say any child here that does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry?" - Woodrow Wilson, September 11, 1919, St. Louis.[47]
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism." - simultaneously highest ranking and most decorated United States Marine (including two Medals of Honor) Major General Smedley Butler (and a Republican Party primary candidate for the United States Senate) 1935.[48]
"For the corporation executives, the military metaphysic often coincides with their interest in a stable and planned flow of profit; it enables them to have their risk underwritten by public money; it enables them reasonably to expect that they can exploit for private profit now and later, the risky research developments paid for by public money. It is, in brief, a mask of the subsidized capitalism from which they extract profit and upon which their power is based." C. Wright Mills, Causes of world war 3,1960
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." - Dwight Eisenhower, Farewell Address, Jan. 17, 1961.
A problem with the capitalism theory is that it is difficult to point out specific major conflicts which have been caused primarily by so-called Big Business.
[edit]Marxist theories

This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)
The Marxist theory of war states that all modern wars are caused by competition for resources and markets between great (imperialist) powers. These wars are a natural progression of the free market and class system, and will only disappear once a world revolution has occurred.
[edit]Political science theories

This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)
The statistical analysis of war was pioneered by Lewis Fry Richardson following World War I. More recent databases of wars and armed conflict have been assembled by the Correlates of War Project, Peter Brecke and the Uppsala Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
There are several different international relations theory schools. Supporters of realism in international relations argue that the motivation of states is the quest for security. Which sometimes is argued to contradict the realist view, that there is much empirical evidence to support the claim that states that are democracies do not go to war with each other, an idea that has come to be known as the democratic peace theory. Other factors included are difference in moral and religious beliefs, economical and trade disagreements, declaring independence, and others.
Another major theory relating to power in international relations and machtpolitik is the Power Transition theory, which distributes the world into a hierarchy and explains major wars as part of a cycle of hegemons being destabilized by a great power which does not support the hegemons' control.
[edit]Objectivist view
Ayn Rand, developer of Objectivism advocates rational individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, adduced that if men want to oppose war, it is statism that they must oppose. She maintained that so long as people hold the tribal notion that the individual is sacrificial fodder for the collective, that some men have the right to rule others by force, and that some (any) alleged "good" can justify it—there can be no peace within a nation and no peace among nations.[49]
[edit]Conduct of wars

The war, to become known as one, must entail some degree of confrontation using weapons and other military technology and equipment by armed forces employing military tactics and Operational art within the broad military strategy subject to military logistics. War Studies by military theorists throughout military history have sought to identify the Philosophy of war, and to reduce it to a Military science.
In general, modern military science considers several factors before a National defence policy is created to allow a war to commence: the environment in the area(s) of combat operations, the posture national forces will adopt on the commencement of a war, and the type of warfare troops will be engaged in.
[edit]Behaviour & conduct in war
The behaviour of troops in warfare varies considerably, both individually and as units or armies. In some circumstances, troops may engage in genocide, mass rape and ethnic cleansing. Commonly, however, the conduct of troops may be limited to aggressive posturing, leading to highly rule-bound and often largely symbolic combat in which casualties are much reduced from that which would be expected if soldiers were genuinely violent towards the enemy.[50]. It has been postulated that sport serves as an direct alternative to war, and may be regarded as having an equivalent social function. Sipes found war and sporting alternatives to be positively correlated.[51]
The psychological separation between combatants, and the destructive power of modern weaponry, may act to override this effect and facilitate participation by combatants in the mass slaughter of combatants or civilians, such as in the bombing of Dresden in World War II. The unusual circumstances of warfare can incite apparently normal individuals to commit atrocities.[52]
[edit]Types of warfare

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)
Conventional warfare is an attempt to reduce an opponent's military capability through open battle. It is a declared war between existing states in which nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons are not used or only see limited deployment in support of conventional military goals and maneuvers.
The opposite of conventional warfare, unconventional warfare, is an attempt to achieve military victory through acquiescence, capitulation, or clandestine support for one side of an existing conflict.
Nuclear warfare is a war in which nuclear weapons are the primary method of coercing the capitulation of the other side, as opposed to a supporting tactical or strategic role in a conventional conflict.
Civil war is a war where the forces in conflict belong to the same nation or political entity and are vying for control of or independence from that nation or political entity.
Asymmetric warfare is a conflict between two populations of drastically different levels of military capability or size. Asymmetric conflicts often result in guerrilla tactics being used to overcome the sometimes vast gaps in technology and force size.
Intentional air pollution in combat is one of a collection of techniques collectively called chemical warfare. Poison gas as a chemical weapons was principally used during World War I, and resulted in an estimated 91,198 deaths and 1,205,655 injuries.[citation needed] Various treaties have sought to ban its further use. Non-lethal chemical weapons, such as tear gas and pepper spray, are widely used, sometimes with deadly effect.
[edit]Military posture
Historian Victor Davis Hanson has claimed there exists a unique "Western Way of War", in an attempt to explain the military successes of Western Europe.citation needed It originated in Ancient Greece, where, in an effort to reduce the damage that warfare has on society, the city-states developed the concept of a decisive pitched battle between heavy infantry. This would be preceded by formal declarations of war and followed by peace negotiations. In this system constant low-level skirmishing and guerrilla warfare were phased out in favour of a single, decisive contest, which in the end cost both sides less in casualties and property damage. Although it was later perverted by Alexander the Great?, this style of war initially allowed neighbours with limited resources to coexist and prosper.
He argues that Western-style armies are characterised by an emphasis on discipline and teamwork above individual bravado. Examples of Western victories over non-Western armies include the Battle of Marathon, the Battle of Gaugamela, the Siege of Tenochtitlan, the Battle of Plassey and the defence of Rorke's Drift.
[edit]Warfare environment
The environment in which a war is fought has a significant impact on the type of combat which takes place, and can include within its area different types of terrain. This in turn means that soldiers have to be trained to fight in a specific types of environments and terrains that generally reflects troops' mobility limitations or enablers. These include:
Conventional warfare
Defensive warfare
Offensive warfare
Jungle warfare
Border warfare a type of limited defensive warfare
Urban warfare
Desert warfare
Maneuver warfare
Trench warfare
Mountain warfare sometimes called Alpine warfare
Arctic warfare or Winter warfare in general
Naval warfare or Aquatic warfare that includes Littoral, Amphibious and Riverine warfare
Unconventional warfare
Guerilla warfare
Psychological warfare
Biological warfare
Chemical warfare
Mine warfare a type of static terrain denial warfare
Air warfare that includes Airborne warfare and Airmobile warfare
Sub-aquatic warfare
Space warfare
Electronic warfare including Radio, Radar and Network warfare
Cyber warfare
Directed-energy warfare
Nuclear warfare
[edit]Effects of war

[edit]On soldiers
They would have dedicated their lives to fighting battles, with little possibility of regaining the ability to live successfully as a civilian. One-tenth of mobilised American men were hospitalised for mental disturbances between 1942 and 1945, and after thirty-five days of uninterrupted combat, 98% of them manifested psychiatric disturbances in varying degrees.[15]
Based on 1860 census figures, 8% of all white males aged 13 to 43 died in the American Civil War, including 6% in the North and 18% in the South.[53] Of the 60 million European soldiers who were mobilized in World War I, 8 million were killed, 7 million were permanently disabled, and 15 million were seriously injured.[54]


Why?, from The Disasters of War (Los desastres de la guerra) , by Francisco Goya, 1812-15.
During Napoleon's retreat from Moscow, more French soldiers died of typhus than were killed by the Russians.[55] Felix Markham thinks that 450,000 crossed the Neman on 25 June 1812, of whom less than 40,000 recrossed in anything like a recognizable military formation.[56] More soldiers were killed from 1500-1914 by typhus than from all military action during that time combined.[57] In addition, if it were not for the modern medical advances there would be thousands of more dead from disease and infection.
[edit]On civilians
Many wars have been accompanied by significant depopulations. During the Thirty Years' War in Europe, for example, the population of the German states was reduced by about 30%.[58] The Swedish armies alone may have destroyed up to 2,000 castles, 18,000 villages and 1,500 towns in Germany, one-third of all German towns.[59]
Estimates for the total casualties of World War II vary, but most suggest that some 60 million people died in the war, including about 20 million soldiers and 40 million civilians.[60] The Soviet Union lost around 27 million people during the war, about half of all World War II casualties.[61] The largest number of civilian deaths in a single city was 1.2 million citizens dead during the 872-day Siege of Leningrad.
[edit]On the economy
Once a war has ended, losing nations are sometimes required to pay repartition to the victorious nations. In certain cases, land is ceded to the victorious nations. For example, the territory of Alsace-Lorraine has been traded between France and Germany on three different occasions.
Typically speaking, war becomes very intertwined with the economy and many wars are based on economic reasons such as the American Civil War. In some cases war has stimulated a country's economy (World War II is often credited with bringing America out of the Great Depression) but in many cases, such as the wars of Louis XIV, the Franco-Prussian War, and World War I, warfare serves only to damage the economy of the countries involved. For example, Russia's involvement in World War I took such a toll on the Russian economy, that the war's effect contributed to the start of the Russian Revolution of 1917.
[edit]World War Two
One of the starkest illustrations of the effect of war upon economies is the Second World War. The Great Depression of the 1930s ended as nations increased their production of war materials to serve the war effort.[62] The financial cost of the World War II is estimated at about a trillion 1944 U.S. dollars worldwide,[63][64] making it the most costly war in capital as well as lives.
Property damage in the Soviet Union inflicted by the Axis invasion was estimated to a value of 679 billion rubles. The combined damage consisted of complete or partial destruction of 1,710 cities and towns, 70,000 villages/hamlets, 2,508 church buildings, 31,850 industrial establishments, 40,000 miles of railroad, 4100 railroad stations, 40,000 hospitals, 84,000 schools, and 43,000 public libraries.[65]
[edit]Morality of war



"The morning after the battle of Waterloo", by John Heaviside Clarke, 1816.

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)
Throughout history war has been the source of serious moral questions. Although many ancient nations and some modern ones have viewed war as noble, over the sweep of history, concerns about the morality of war have gradually increased. Today, war is seen by some as undesirable and morally problematic. At the same time, many view war, or at least the preparation and readiness and willingness to engage in war, as necessary for the defense of their country and therefore a just war. Pacifists believe that war is inherently immoral and that no war should ever be fought.
The negative view of war has not always been held as widely as it is today. Heinrich von Treitschke saw war as humanity's highest activity where courage, honour, and ability were more necessary than in any other endeavour. Friedrich Nietzsche also saw war as an opportunity for the Übermensch to display heroism, honour, and other virtues.[citation needed]
Another supporter of war, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, favoured it as part of the necessary process required for history to unfold and allow society to progress. At the outbreak of World War I, the writer Thomas Mann wrote, "Is not peace an element of civil corruption and war a purification, a liberation, an enormous hope?" This attitude has been embraced by societies from Sparta and Rome in the ancient world to the fascist states of the 1930s.
International law recognizes only two cases for a legitimate war:
Wars of defense: when one nation is attacked by an aggressor, it is considered legitimate for a nation along with its allies to defend itself against the aggressor.
Wars sanctioned by the UN Security Council: when the United Nations as a whole acts as a body against a certain nation. Examples include various peacekeeping operations around the world.
The subset of international law known as the law of war or international humanitarian law also recognises regulations for the conduct of war, including the Geneva Conventions governing the legitimacy of certain kinds of weapons, and the treatment of prisoners of war. Cases where these conventions are broken are considered war crimes, and since the Nuremberg Trials at the end of World War II the international community has established a number of tribunals to try such cases.
A nation's economy is often stimulated by government war-spending. When countries wage war, more weapons, armor, ammunition, and the like are needed to be created and sold to the armies, thus their economies can enter a boom (or war economy) reducing unemployment. One major depression, the Great Depression, was ended because of World War II.[citation needed]
[edit]Factors ending a war


This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2008)


Women and priests retrieve the dead bodies of Swabian soldiers just outside the city gates of Constance after the battle of Schwaderloh. (Luzerner Schilling)
The political and economic circumstances in the peace that follows war usually depends on the "facts on the ground". Where evenly matched adversaries decide that the conflict has resulted in a stalemate, they may cease hostilities to avoid further loss of life and property. They may decide to restore the antebellum territorial boundaries, redraw boundaries at the line of military control, or negotiate to keep or exchange captured territory. Negotiations between parties involved at the end of a war often result in a treaty, such as the Treaty of Versailles of 1919, which ended the First World War.
A warring party that surrenders or capitulates may have little negotiating power, with the victorious side either imposing a settlement or dictating most of the terms of any treaty. A common result is that conquered territory is brought under the dominion of the stronger military power. An unconditional surrender is made in the face of overwhelming military force as an attempt to prevent further harm to life and property. For example, the Empire of Japan gave an unconditional surrender to the Allies of World War II after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (see Surrender of Japan), the preceding massive strategic bombardment of Japan and declaration of war and the immediate invasion of Manchuria by the Soviet Union. A settlement or surrender may also be obtained through deception or bluffing.
Many other wars, however, have ended in complete destruction of the opposing territory, such as the Battle of Carthage of the Third Punic War between the Phoenician city of Carthage and Ancient Rome in 149 BC. In 146 BC the Romans burned the city, enslaved its citizens, and razed the buildings.
Some wars or aggressive actions end when the military objective of the victorious side has been achieved. Others do not, especially in cases where the state structures do not exist, or have collapsed prior to the victory of the conqueror. In such cases, disorganised guerilla warfare may continue for a considerable period. In cases of complete surrender conquered territories may be brought under the permanent dominion of the victorious side. A raid for the purposes of looting may be completed with the successful capture of goods. In other cases an aggressor may decide to end hostilities to avoid continued losses and cease hostilities without obtaining the original objective, such as happened in the Iran–Iraq War.
Some hostilities, such as insurgency or civil war, may persist for long periods of time with only a low level of military activity. In some cases there is no negotiation of any official treaty, but fighting may trail off and eventually stop after the political demands of the belligerent groups have been reconciled, a political settlement has been negotiated, or combatants are gradually killed or decide the conflict is futile.
[edit]List of wars by death toll


It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into List of wars and disasters by death toll. (Discuss)
These figures include deaths of civilians from diseases, famine, atrocities etc. as well as deaths of soldiers in battle.
This is an incomplete list of wars.
60,000,000–72,000,000 - World War II (1939–1945), (see World War II casualties)[66][67]
36,000,000 - An Shi Rebellion (China, 755–763)[citation needed]
30,000,000–60,000,000 - Mongol Conquests (13th century) (see Mongol invasions and Tatar invasions)[68][69][70][71]
25,000,000 - Manchu conquest of Ming China (1616–1662)[72]
20,000,000 - World War I (1914–1918) (see World War I casualties)[73]
20,000,000 - Taiping Rebellion (China, 1851–1864) (see Dungan revolt)[74]
20,000,000 - Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945)[75]
10,000,000 - Warring States Era (China, 475 BC–221 BC)
7,000,000 - 20,000,000 Conquests of Timur the Lame (1360-1405) (see List of wars in the Muslim world)[76][77]
5,000,000–9,000,000 - Russian Civil War and Foreign Intervention (1917–1921)[78]
5,000,000 - Conquests of Menelik II of Ethiopia (1882- 1898)[79][80]
3,800,000 - 5,400,000 - Second Congo War (1998–2007)[81][82][83]
3,500,000–6,000,000 - Napoleonic Wars (1804–1815) (see Napoleonic Wars casualties)
3,000,000–11,500,000 - Thirty Years' War (1618–1648)[84]
3,000,000–7,000,000 - Yellow Turban Rebellion (China, 184–205)
2,500,000–3,500,000 - Korean War (1950–1953) (see Cold War)[85]
2,300,000–3,800,000 - Vietnam War (entire war 1945–1975)
300,000–1,300,000 - First Indochina War (1945–1954)
100,000–300,000 - Vietnamese Civil War (1954–1960)
1,750,000–2,100,000 - American phase (1960–1973)
170,000 - Final phase (1973–1975)
175,000–1,150,000 - Secret War (1962–1975)
2,000,000–4,000,000 - Huguenot Wars [86]
2,000,000 - Shaka's conquests (1816-1828)[87]
2,000,000 - Mahmud of Ghazni's invasions of India (1000-1027)[88]
300,000–3,000,000[89] - Bangladesh Liberation War (1971)
1,500,000–2,000,000 - Afghan Civil War (1979-)
1,000,000–1,500,000 Soviet intervention (1979–1989)
1,300,000–6,100,000 - Chinese Civil War (1928–1949) note that this figure excludes World War II casualties
300,000–3,100,000 before 1937
1,000,000–3,000,000 after World War II
1,000,000–2,000,000 - Mexican Revolution (1910–1920)[90]
1,000,000 - Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988)[91]
1,000,000 - Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)[92]
1,000,000 - Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2005)
1,000,000 - Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970)
618,000[93] - 970,000 - American Civil War (including 350,000 from disease) (1861–1865)
900,000–1,000,000 - Mozambique Civil War (1976–1993)
868,000[94] - 1,400,000[95] - Seven Years' War (1756-1763)
800,000 - 1,000,000 - Rwandan Civil War (1990-1994)
800,000 - Congo Civil War (1991–1997)
600,000 to 1,300,000 - First Jewish-Roman War (see List of Roman wars)
580,000 - Bar Kokhba’s revolt (132–135CE)
570,000 - Eritrean War of Independence (1961-1991)
550,000 - Somali Civil War (1988- )
500,000 - 1,000,000 - Spanish Civil War (1936–1939)
500,000 - Angolan Civil War (1975–2002)
500,000 - Ugandan Civil War (1979–1986)
400,000–1,000,000 - War of the Triple Alliance in Paraguay (1864–1870)
400,000 - War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714)
371,000 - Continuation War (1941-1944)
350,000 - Bosnian Genocide (1992–1995)
350,000 - Great Northern War (1700-1721)[96]
315,000 - 735,000 - Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639-1651) English campaign ~40,000, Scottish 73,000, Irish 200,000-620,000[97]
300,000 - Russian-Circassian War (1763-1864) (see Caucasian War)
300,000 - First Burundi Civil War (1972)
300,000 - Darfur conflict (2003-)
270,000–300,000 - Crimean War (1854–1856)
255,000-1,120,000 - Philippine-American War (1898-1913)
230,000–1,400,000 - Ethiopian Civil War (1974–1991)
224,000 - Balkan Wars, includes both wars (1912-1913
220,000 - Liberian Civil War (1989 - )
217,000 - 1,124,303 - War on Terror (9/11/2001-Present)[citation needed]
200,000 - 1,000,000[98][99] - Albigensian Crusade (1208-1259)
200,000–800,000 - Warlord era in China (1917–1928)
200,000 - Second Punic War (BC218-BC204) (see List of Roman battles)
200,000 - Sierra Leone Civil War (1991–2000)
200,000 - Algerian Civil War (1991- )[100][101]
200,000 - Guatemalan Civil War (1960–1996)
190,000 - Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871)
180,000 - 300,000 - La Violencia (1948-1958)
170,000 - Greek War of Independence (1821-1829)
150,000 - Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990)
150,000 - North Yemen Civil War (1962–1970)
150,000 - Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905)
148,000-1,000,000 - Winter War (1939)
125,000 - Eritrean-Ethiopian War (1998–2000)
120,000 - 384,000 Great Turkish War (1683-1699) (see Ottoman-Habsburg wars)
120,000 - Third Servile War (BC73-BC71)
117,000 - 500,000 - Revolt in the Vendée (1793-1796)
103,359+ - 1,136,920+ - Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (2003-Present)
102,622 - Bosnian War of Independence
101,000 - 115,000 - Arab-Israeli conflict (1929- )
100,500 - Chaco War (1932–1935)
100,000 - 1,000,000 - War of the two brothers (1531–1532)
100,000 - 400,000 - Western New Guinea (1984 - ) (see Genocide in West Papua)
100,000 - 200,000 - Indonesian invasion of East Timor (1975-1978)
100,000 - Persian Gulf War (1991)
100,000–1,000,000 - Algerian War of Independence (1954–1962)
100,000 - Thousand Days War (1899–1901)
100,000 - Peasants' War (1524-1525)[102]
80,000 - Third Punic War (BC149-BC146)
75,000 - 200,000? - Conquests of Alexander the Great (BC336-BC323)
75,000 - El Salvador Civil War (1980–1992)
75,000 - Second Boer War (1898–1902)
70,000 - Boudica's uprising (AD60-AD61)
69,000 - Internal conflict in Peru (1980- )
60,000 - Sri Lanka/Tamil conflict (1983-2009)
60,000 - Nicaraguan Rebellion (1972-91)
55,000 - War of the Pacific (1879-1885)
50,000 - 200,000 - First Chechen War (1994–1996)
50,000 - 100,000 - Tajikistan Civil War (1992–1997)
50,000 - Wars of the Roses (1455-1485) (see Wars involving England)
45,000 - Greek Civil War (1945-1949)
41,000–100,000 - Kashmiri insurgency (1989- )
36,000 - Finnish Civil War (1918)
35,000 - 40,000 - War of the Pacific (1879–1884)
35,000 - 45,000 - Siege of Malta (1565) (see Ottoman wars in Europe)
30,000 - Turkey/PKK conflict (1984- )
30,000 - Sino-Vietnamese War (1979)
~28,000 - 1982 Lebanon War (1982)
25,000 - Second Chechen War (1999 - present)[103]
25,000 - American Revolutionary War (1775-1783)
23,384 - Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (December 1971)
23,000 - Nagorno-Karabakh War (1988-1994)
20,000 - 49,600 U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan (2001–2002)
19,000+ - Mexican–American War (1846-1848)
14,000+ - Six-Day War (1967)
15,000–20,000 - Croatian War of Independence (1991–1995)
11,053 - Malayan Emergency (1948-1960)
11,000 - Spanish-American War (1898)
10,000 - Amadu's Jihad (1810-1818)
10,000 - Halabja poison gas attack (1988)
7,264–10,000 - Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 (August-September 1965)
7,000–24,000 - American War of 1812 (1812-1815)
7,000 - Kosovo War (1996–1999) (disputed)
5,000 - Turkish invasion of Cyprus (1974)
4,588 - Sino-Indian War (1962)
4,000 - Waziristan War (2004-2006)
4,000 - Irish Civil War (1922-23)
3,000 - Civil war in Côte d'Ivoire (2002-2007)
2,899 - New Zealand Land Wars (1845-1872)
2,604–7,000 - Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 (October 1947-December 1948)
2,000 - Football War (1969)
2,000 - Irish War of Independence (1919-21)
1,975–4,500+ - violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2000 -)
1,724 - War of Lapland (1945)
1,500 - Romanian Revolution (December 1989)
~1,500 - 2006 Lebanon War
~1,400 - Gaza War (December 2008 - January 2009)
1,000 - Zapatista uprising in Chiapas (1994)
907 - Falklands War (1982)
62 - Slovenian Independence War (1991)
[edit]See also

War portal
Wikipedia:Books has a book on: War
Peace
Collateral damage
General reference
Undeclared war
Colonial war
Religious war
Breakaway states
Casus belli
Fault Line War
Horses in warfare
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
War cycles
Water war
War as metaphor
War related lists
List of ongoing conflicts
List of wars and disasters by death toll
List of wars
List of battles
List of war crimes
List of orders of battle
List of invasions
List of terrorist incidents
List of military commanders
List of battles by death toll
List of battles and other violent events by death toll
[edit]References

Wondered when it would happen.