Many wars were cruel and useless, like the wars of Attila, of the Vikings, or the First World war. But others were a lot more meaningful, because they were compliant to really important causes. Three examples can be taken into account and show that conflicts, if they have a real sense, are worth engaging. Aristotle distinguished between cautiousness and sagacity: he meant that being cautious doesn’t mean you should always avoid confrontation; if a war, a conflict or an opposition is worth doing then it is a good thing to engage, wage a conflict or a war. Three examples show that: the Secession war, the Commune war and the Second World war.
The Secession war was led by Abraham Lincoln to put an end to slavery. It looked that this engagement was a principle of action for him from the beginning of his life. But this war, waged against the South whose industry was relying of cotton, was a symbol of an “idealistic” war led by principles. If the South won the first battles, the mastery of infrastructures and the new technologies by the North allowed Lincoln to win a lot of great victories quite fast. Actually the ideas that made Lincoln successful made the United States help decisively France and Great Britain in the first world war ; the German, as the Sudists 50 years before, underestimated the danger of the American intervention which was led on 3 main ideas : the notion of “crusade” (for the good, not against another religion) which was efficient in terms of soft power ; a priority focus on economic help rather than the military, as the Americans apply greatly the principle of Emmanuel Kant for which “the first measure of power is money” ; a great investment in infrastructures. These 3 principles were very efficient for Lincoln and helped him win a great deal of victories quite fast. But his focus on a noble cause like the abolition of slavery, and then giving a more important dimension to this war had a very good effect on the ongoing of the war. In the history of the United States, it was a turning point as well : the following years were a new period of an extraordinary economic development that made the United States in the beginning of the XXth century the first economic power in the world. Actually slavery, besides being a monstruosity, wasn’t efficient economically, because enslaved people, who are not motivated by their work, work a lot less efficiently than for instance entrepreneurs who chose their business and will be a lot more fully engaged to make it succeed. The North of America at this time symbolize the “beautiful” part of the United States : the possibility for all the migrants, the excluded and marginalized of the world to start a new life, work hard to achieve their aspirations and their dreams. It looks that the oppositions of the United States is a relentless new “match” of the war of Secession. The opposition of modern “Nordists” and “Sudists” is always happening, the symbol of that is the opposition between Obama and Trump.
The second war is the Commune war. This war was led after the severe defeat of Napoleon III against Germany of Bismark. Bismark succeeded to reunify Germany, after centuries of divisions, using the corruption and decadence of the France of Napoleon III to defeat them at Sedan and imposing humiliating peace conditions to France. If Zola wrote that this war was a good thing for France, because a great enemy like Germany was the occasion for the “real” France to wake up (France will take its revenge at the end of the First World war, a symbol of that is Clemenceau), the insurrection of the Commune happened in this context. This revolt comes from far, as for instance many leaders of this movement were taught by intellectuals and teachers during evening classes for factory workers for instance. Marx followed very closely this movement and thought that it was the realization of his dictatorship of proletariat (which is better that the extraordinary psychopath Stalin and his sentence “one dead is a tragedy, millions of death is a statistic”). The Commune war made a lot of great laws, for instance for the rights of women. However they followed too much Marx in their military approach : as Marx wanted to suppress the division of labor of the liberal economist Smith, the Communards created an undisciplined army which was a great “auberge espagnole”. Misfortunately, they were very fast defeated and slaughtered. The Versaillais, who were fighting the Communards, built the Sacre Coeur to redeem the place of the sins of the Communards, even if Saint Peter had probably said in their last judgement they have reversed the roles. I don’t want to say the Communards were perfect or saints, as they did exactions. But these violences and abuses had anyway nothing to compare with Stalin and even Lenin. On the other hand, they created in a very short time greatly positive things concerning redistribution or the rights of women. Their way to govern was really innovative and original, and their audacious and creative way to approach the governing process can be an inspiration for today in our time of “grand n’importe quoi”, for instance in the National Assembly. In my opinion, even with bad sides, the Commune government has overall a positive aspect, and its really good sides can be very inspiring today. This war of “dreamers” can be an example for those who don’t want to resign to a reality they don’t like or are not satisfied with.
The last example is the Second World war. Contrary to the First World war, which was a “banal” conflict between powers, as the first main reason was the refusal for Great Britain to see Germany outcompete its power, especially the naval one ; actually the only winner of this dreadful war was the United States, who continued quietly to grow economically. The Second World war had a far more meaningful aspect, as we can describe as a war between good and evil. Hitler and Stalin were monsters as they existed few in History ; if oppressors are countless in the history of humanity, monsters like Hitler or Stalin are very rare. The Second World war had the honor to count these two actors in its scenario. Misfortunately Hitler outcompeted France (and probably Great Britain if the Americans and the Soviets hadn’t intervened) on several aspects : they prepared the future investing a great deal in planes and chars, they fostered long term thinking while the French Etat Major was waging a great battle of egos to know who would win the best the First World war finished 20 years before. The Spain war should have been a great alert as Blum didn’t succeed at all to contain the Germans, who succeeded to make Franco win. But the French ignored this alert and got their worst defeat in their history, defeated and occupied after only 1 month and a half. Great Britain resisted very bravely but didn’t have the level of their German enemy, who was outcompeting them in the airs and in the sea ; Japan will finish to demolish the idea of Great Britain as the master of the seas. The Barbarossa operation will be a lot more interesting, while Hitler feared a lot less Stalin than France and Great Britain in the beginning of the war ; but Stalin will give another level of opposition, even if, in my opinion, without the Americans, he would have finished to lose (but fighting a lot better than France and Great Britain). The intervention of the Americans after Pearl Harbor attack on one hand, and great battles as Stalingrad on the other hand (the first guerilla city war in History) will step by step weaken and defeat the Nazis. But the monstruosity of Hitler, which was first seen in the Shoah and all the cruel and atrocious actions against the Jews, but in many other things as well, show that this war was a war of democracy, freedom against totalitarism. What would have happened if Germany on one side and Japan on another would have ruled the majority of the world? To this extend it is important never to forget the sacrifices of those thanks to which we are today free, and I think for instance about the song “les Ricains” of Michel Sardou, with this sentence “a man from Georgia went to die in the beaches of Normandy a day you were not there”, an important reminded and a way, as the French idiom says, of “remettre l’église au centre du village” (to put the church in the center of the village). It is the reason why the Second World war, besides being an extraordinary novel in itself, one of the most passionating wars to follow (in my opinion with the war between the Romans and the Puniques in the Antiquity and the Napoleonic wars), a war based on principles and ideals above all. People like Churchill, Roosevelt or de Gaulle are examples to follow for many generations in our century and the next ones.
These examples show that engagement is meaningful, even if it is important to be cautious. Learning from great characters as Lincoln or Churchill for instance can bring us a lot to build the future in an area of great technological revolutions, with its threats and its hopes linked to them.
The observer 