I had an interesting thought. What if there are two countries that live side by side in peace. But then they learn Esperanto. Country A notices that country B is always looking down on them. Country B notices that country A is very aggressive. This causes a clash of cultures. Prior to learning Esperanto, they both didn't understand each other and so they were less likely to go to war.

Maybe there is a country that is always cursing us but we don't know about it because we don't understand their language. So it never creates a conflict. But, then when we both learn Esperanto, we will understand them and then get angry.

What do you think? Could this every happen?

Alkanadi:I had an interesting thought. What if there are two countries that live side by side in peace. But then they learn Esperanto. Country A notices that country B is always looking down on them. Country B notices that country A is very aggressive. This causes a clash of cultures. Prior to learning Esperanto, they both didn't understand each other and so they were less likely to go to war.

Maybe there is a country that is always cursing us but we don't know about it because we don't understand their language. So it never creates a conflict. But, then when we both learn Esperanto, we will understand them and then get angry.

What do you think? Could this every happen?

When you learn a foreign language, you usually use it to communicate with foreigners, not locals. For example, Country A speaks language A and Country B speaks language B. When they learn Esperanto, they won't stop using their native languages. And they will curse other countries in their own language. This prevents others from understanding them.

Also, I don't think that this would lead to a war, but this can help a war to start. It is nonsense to declare war to a country because they cursed you. Almost every country curses each other. You can be sure that there are some people on the Earth who pray for you and your country to die. And you can always learn their language to understand them. If learning Esperanto caused wars, this would start a war too.

Alkanadi:I had an interesting thought. What if there are two countries that live side by side in peace. But then they learn Esperanto. Country A notices that country B is always looking down on them. Country B notices that country A is very aggressive. This causes a clash of cultures. Prior to learning Esperanto, they both didn't understand each other and so they were less likely to go to war.

Maybe there is a country that is always cursing us but we don't know about it because we don't understand their language. So it never creates a conflict. But, then when we both learn Esperanto, we will understand them and then get angry.

What do you think? Could this every happen?

What would cause the war is the fact that the people are divided to begin with and then played out against each other. It's always the same concept of divide et impera.

By the way, wars don't just happen. They are always more or less carefully designed.
So not Esperanto would cause the war, but the existence of the two countries with some sort of organized governments. And people are always stupid enough believe their authority; the vast majority at least. They are stupid enough to accept authority in the first place.

It seems in your scenario the cause of the war would be hateful attitudes between people, and Esperanto's role would be only incidental.

I'm also not sure how plausible this scenario is. Wars happen when the governments, the people in charge, can whip up enough negative sentiment toward outsiders (calling it nationalism or patriotism), in order to advance their political careers and gain power.

Want to invade Iraq? Start selling T-shirts depicting Saddam's face on a bulls-eye target and encourage negative attitudes toward everyone who looks Muslim. The dehumanization works every time.

This doesn't have much to do with language.

I don't think this could have any measurable effect on whether or not nations go to war with each other. While I hesitate to agree with ustra on any subject , I believe it is more-or-less the dealings of our wealthy elite and those in power which determine whether or not a war occurs.

Alkanadi:I had an interesting thought. What if there are two countries that live side by side in peace. But then they learn Esperanto. Country A notices that country B is always looking down on them. Country B notices that country A is very aggressive. This causes a clash of cultures. Prior to learning Esperanto, they both didn't understand each other and so they were less likely to go to war.

Maybe there is a country that is always cursing us but we don't know about it because we don't understand their language. So it never creates a conflict. But, then when we both learn Esperanto, we will understand them and then get angry.

What do you think? Could this every happen?

The possibility that two countries speaking different languages do NOT have intelligence officers who speak the other nation's language is unlikely to the extreme........fading into the impossible if you ask this former intelligence community operative.

Tempodivalse:I'm also not sure how plausible this scenario is. Wars happen when the governments, the people in charge, can whip up enough negative sentiment toward outsiders (calling it nationalism or patriotism)... The dehumanization works every time.

Of course my scenario is a little dramatic. Just because some curses your country doesn't mean that it will start a war.

Exactly, dehumanization can cause wars. It is easier to dehumanize people when you can use quotes from what they say. It is easier to judge another population when you understand them.

Look at how much hatred was cultivated against Iran once their lectures (from extremists) were translated to English and broadcasted on the News.

Imagine that Americans and Iranians both spoke Esperanto perfectly and it was the main language. They would understand our extremists that talk about nuking the Middle East and banning all Muslims from the country. We would understand their extremists when they have anti-American rallies.

I think there would be more anger and fear towards Iran if Americans could understand Persian.

Yes, I know, that it is far more likely to prevent wars when everyone speaks the same language. It is just an random thought that I had.

orthohawk:The possibility that two countries speaking different languages do NOT have intelligence officers who speak the other nation's language is unlikely to the extreme...

Yes, but you have to shift the attitudes of the whole country to garner support for a war. If people understand each other then those attitudes might already be negative, which means that they don't even need to be shifted.

I guess the point I am trying to make is this:

Firstly, fear and anger creates wars. When people are scared they will support strong militaristic leadership, even if it means giving up their rights and accepting a lower standard of living.

With that in mind, there are probably some countries that are anti-American. I don't fear them because I have no clue what they are saying about me. If I knew what they wanted to do with me then I would probably feel very scared and I would be less likely to object to military action.

Just think about this group called Boko Haram. Nobody is afraid of them because we don't know much about them. What if we understood them perfectly? I bet we would be more likely to send troops and drones.

In this way, mutual linguistic understanding can actually be a catalyst towards military action.

Alkanadi:Look at how much hatred was cultivated against Iran once their lectures (from extremists) were translated to English and broadcasted on the News.

Imagine that Americans and Iranians both spoke Esperanto perfectly and it was the main language. They would understand our extremists that talk about nuking the Middle East and banning all Muslims from the country. We would understand their extremists when they have anti-American rallies.

I think there would be more anger and fear towards Iran if Americans could understand Persian.

Sorry, but you have a very incomplete and naive picture about the history of Iran or you wouldn't be using such an example. Historical facts need be articulated accurately.

Until 1953 Iran was a moderate democracy under the prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. But he commited a cardinal sin when he didn't want to share the nation's wealth in oil with anglo-american companies. It was after that that the regimes of the USA and the UK orchestrated a coup d'état in order to overthrough the democratically elected Mosaddegh. The operation was successful and from then on Iran was ruled by a dictator, the Shah by the grace of anglo-american oil companies.

In their despair the iranian people flew into the arms of Ayatollah Khomeini who was a radical religous leader. This led to the Iranian Revolution in 1979 in which the cruel Shah was overthrown and at the same time the anglo-american "guests" were thrown out of the country.
What followed is the US embargo against Iran which lasts to this day.

So please don't equate the obnoxious US agenda with that of Iran as this only blurs the underlying realities.
And by the way, during its entire existence Iran did not even once attack another country.

Alkanadi:Yes, I know, that it is far more likely to prevent wars when everyone speaks the same language. It is just an random thought that I had.

Again, wars are always fully intended and not just the result of some kind of misunderstanding.

Alkanadi:With that in mind, there are probably some countries that are anti-American.

Even if it might come as a surprise, but most people around the world refuse the fascist agenda of the USA. It is a coarse misrepresentation to call that "anti-American".
You shouldn't fear other countries but rather your very own US government. The reasons are plentiful.

Please study this article carefully.

Alkanadi:Just think about this group called Boko Haram. Nobody is afraid of them because we don't know much about them. What if we understood them perfectly?

Radical islamism is the creation of western, israeli and wahhabite regimes. Rest assured that they understand each other just perfectly fine.

Alkanadi:Just think about this group called Boko Haram. Nobody is afraid of them because we don't know much about them. What if we understood them perfectly?

Radical islamism is the creation of western, israeli and wahhabite regimes. Rest assured that they understand each other just perfectly fine.

How they were formed is a side issue. Just think about this. Are you more likely to support military action against Boko Haram if you understood their ideas? Or, are you less likely? I imagine that mutual understanding would be more likely to prompt military action because we would know how crazy they are and we would be more afraid of them.