National fundamental interests aiding war

All,

We read a lot about instances that will lead to a war, as though nothing can stop it.

Some instances may be where the interests of nations involved are so fundamentally at odds that a compromise cannot be found.

Some might be based on national ‘pride’, ego of the leaders, etc etc. In essence, a workable compromise could have been found.

My good question is: which one’s?

Constantinople, 1852: the keys and Russia’s insistence of being the protector of all Christians: Was Turkey’s independence so fundamentally threatened that it could not have compromised?

Were British interests really on the line?

Crimea war: the follow-on from the ‘keys’.

The Serbian ultimatum: Could the infringement of Serbian sovereignty have been avoided? Why have the clause as the other clauses could have been accepted?

Unconditional surrender: Did it really do the trick?

… and so on
 
Top