Some Considerations on War in Democratic Communities 11-10-2010

 I cannot do justice to this chapter.

History outstripped de Tocqueville by 1865. He saw only the Napoleonic army living off the land, having smooth-bore cannon and muskets, and moving no quicker than its fastest horses. William Sherman seems to contradict this paragraph:

According to the law of nations adopted in civilized countries, the object of war is not to seize the property of private individuals, but simply to get possession of political power. The destruction of private property is only occasionally resorted to, for the purpose of attaining the latter object.

Some Considerations on War in Democratic Communities

From zeppelin raids on London to Guernica to the Blitz to the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima, the occasional became regular. Consider how all these cities were attacked from the air. I remember Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. having harsh words (well, harsh for him) about the air force dropping bombs from on high. Perhaps this is how the Air Force justifies paying for all those bombers?

I think the history of high explosives and guerilla warfare undermines this passage:

When an aristocratic country is invaded after defeat of its army, the nobles… will continue to defend themselves. Among a nation is which equality of condition prevails, … so that they are much less afraid of being conquered and much more afraid of war than an aristocratic people. It will always be very difficult to convince a democratic people to take up arms when hostilities have reached its own territory….

Is that what the Japanese thought in 1941? Not, as I understand, Admiral Yamamoto.

From 1865 to 2010, I see the response to the defeat of an army as the rise of guerilla warfare. The French Resistance showed what a democratic people would do after the defeat of their army. I see something similar in the Afghanistan of 2010.

I agree with the importance of this paragraph:

It should never be forgotten by the princes and other leaders of democratic countries that nothing but the love and the habit of freedom can maintain an advantageous contest with the love and the habit of physical well-being. I can conceive nothing better purposed for subjection, in case of defeat, than a democratic people without free institutions.

sch