The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Claim: the French-Indian War (by England) was justified

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,048 times Debate No: 38527
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




It was England, with the help of William Pitt the Elder, warmongering against France and the Native Americans, both rightful claimers to the land that was there already, just so they can steal the land and engage in imperialism, looting, stealing from the native lands to enrich the mother country.


I prefer to call it the Seven Years' War, since that's the holistic term for the conflict. Describing it as the French and Indian War is like calling WWII the Abyssinian War. There was fighting in Abyssinia, but the main action took place in Europe.

To address the causes of the war, and how those can be justified, I shall start with European diplomacy in the prelude to it.

In the mid eighteenth century, there were essentially six major powers.

Britain was a rising star, with possessions that totalled the British Isles, Hanover and the Eastern Seaboard, as well as some scattered colonies in Africa and India and a small part of Northern Canada. It had ambitions to expand west and south in North America, as well as gaining a trading monopoly in India.
France was a traditional power, that dominated the European mainland west of Poland, and had sizable possessions in the Caribbean and North America. It desired to prevent British expansion in North America, as well as to reinforce its borders with Germany and with the Indian States.
Austria was an ancient power, dating from around the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and stretched from the Adriatic at Trieste to Transylvania. It had most of the predominantly Catholic German States in its patrimony, as well as most of northern Italy. In the last pan-European conflict, Austria had lost Silesia, a stretch of land on what is now the border between Poland and the Czech Republic that was the industrial heartland of Central Europe, to Prussia, and there was a strong feeling of revanchism among the Austrian parliament. It desired to maintain its hegemony over Germany, and to regain the territory of Silesia.
Prussia was a very new power in the region, and although it controlled a very small part of Northern Europe, it was a very militarised society, a sort-of eighteenth century Sparta. Voltaire commented on it saying: 'Prussia is not a state that posseses an army, but an army that possesses a state'. With its new military doctrines and state of almost perpetual mobilisation that the current King, Frederick II 'The Great' had introduced, it had the potential to seriously disturb the delicate balance of power in Europe. In the previous war, it had conquered Silesia, as mentioned earlier, and now had the economic base to build a country. It desired Austria's patrimony in Germany, and was motivated to expand its influence over the waning state of Poland in the East.
Russia was another old power, having been prominent since the fifteenth century as Russia. It was an agrarian peasant society, much in the same way as Austria and France, but with stronger ties, and showed very few signs of modernising. To the south of it lay the decaying Ottoman Empire, and to the west, the decaying Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth. Russia had a huge population and capacity for expansion, and desired to acquire areas such as Crimea and Poland in the short term, and have more influence over the Ottoman Empire and Eastern Europe as a whole.
Spain was the declining power. At its prime, it was the richest and most powerful state in Europe, with huge colonial possessions and wealth beyond the dreams of the other nations. It controlled the only passage into the Mediterranean and most of the New World, but after the death of the last Hapsburg monarch Charles II in 1700 and the ascension of the Bourbon French monarch, Philip V, Spain became little more than a puppet of France. In previous wars, Britain had acquired the key strategic locations of Gibraltar and Minorca, control of which stripped Spain of the ability to regulate trade passing through the Strait of Gibraltar and to protect it from Barbary Pirates in Algeria and Morocco. Spain desired to reconquer these territories, as well as maintain order in the Americas by maintaining the status quo, and curb British naval power.

These six powers formed two alliances.

Britain and Prussia were aligned with each other, but this did not come to fruition until 1756.

France, Austria and Russia were allied, with Spain coming in in 1761, as Russia was leaving.

Prior to the war's outbreak, Britain's relatively dovish government was against war with France, and looked to form an alliance with Prussia to act as a deterrent. This has since been demonstrated to not work; just look at WWI, which showed that it only built tensions up, but they had no way of knowing it at the time. The government was a fairly liberal one under Newcastle, who was determined to avoid war, much to the chagrin of the more radical elements of parliament.

The War began in 1756, when a French force attacked the British garrison at Minorca. Britain mobilised for war, and dispatched a force to relieve it. Fighting had occurred in the border regions between the British and French zones in 1754, though it was largely between differently-aligned tribes and over-zealous provincial militia groups and fencibles. Newcastle attempted to avert a war through the aforementioned alliance with Prussia, but this ultimately failed, as it was too little, too late.

Shortly afterwards, King Frederick launched a preemptive strike against Austria by invading Saxony, a state in its German patrimony that was on the border with Prussia. Prussia's aim for the war in the short term was to annex Saxony, and use its riches and forces to finance the invasion of Bohemia and Moravia by capturing Prague and Olmutz, and then marching on Vienna to end what had been a short, glorious war. It started as Prussia had expected - the Saxon and Austrian forces were completely unprepared and suffered from poor morale, and Prussian fores took Dresden, the capital, without much resistance. They then made preparations for the advancement of nearly one hundred thousand soldiers into Bohemia and Moravia.

An agreement was quickly made at the Westminster Convention, in which Britain agreed to give Prussia over half a million pounds (about two hundred million dollars) and donated military supplies to the Prussian army. They also agreed to not recognise Austria's claim to Silesia in exchange for Prussia to send an army to defend Hanover from the French. This makeshift alliance embroiled Britain in a war with Austria and Prussia in a war with France. Sensing an opportunity to muscle in on Eastern Europe, Russia decided to join on Austria and France's side.

Sorry if that was a little long-winded, but the background is always necessary for any well-structured case. The fighting in North America, chiefly in Ohio, was largely as a result of mutual border disputes and tribal feuds. To say that the governments were at war at this point would be to say that Israel is at war with Palestine and Syria because it is conducting transgressions on their land. yes, there was conflict, but there was no war. The war started as a result of French aggression on a British-held island. France was essentially the military arm of Spain at that point, and it was basically liberating Minorca from the British, who were not internationally recognised as the rightful owners of the island. Therefore the war was justified. The justification is on both sides, since France had the justification that it was liberating an island under British occupation; while Britain had the justification that it was defending its sovereign territory.

Also, Pitt was not prime minister until three years after the war ended. He was a major figure in Parliament, however, serving as Secretary of State for Newcastle, Devonshire and Bute. Even then, Pitt was a relatively dovish figure, and helped to ease the war's progress from 1761 onwards.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for correcting me about Pitt. He was prime minister after. But he has a lot of evil in his portfolio. He was a very rude man from what I can tell, always boasting about how England was superior to other countries, and wanting a war with France, and an ardent believer in expansionism. His son, the Younger, might be very well responsible for initiating the Raj, long before the official date of the Raj's beginning. Technically, power-hungry, the Younger wanted to take over India, so he ended a peaceful trade relation and replaced it with total conquest. As far as the French-Indian War is concerned, Pitt the Elder was a leader, and given the brutalities during that war, he seems like the type to have raped indigenous women and whatnot.


The perceptions of Pitt, and the British political system in general, are dependent upon the context. The Prime Minister, who had been elected (Admittedly in elections in which about 5% of the population could take part), was Henry Pelham who served for eleven years. He was a pretty good Prime Minister, and oversaw the first Jewish equality law, as well as reduced the national debt and reorganised the navy. He died in office just before the French stormed Minorca, and was replaced by the Duke of Newcastle, his brother.

The way in which ministers are selected is rather different to the American model. All ministers must be Members of Parliament (essentially congressmen), or Members of the House of Lords (like senators, but they elect each other). The four main offices of the current cabinet in the UK and the USA are as follows:

Prime Minister - David Cameron, MP for Witney President - Barack Obama
Chancellor of the Exchequer - George Osborne, MP for Tatton Secretary of the Treasury - Jacob Lew
Home Secretary - Theresa May, MP for Maidenhead Secretary of Homeland Security - Rand Beers
Foreign Secretary - William Hague, MP for Richmond Secretary of State - John Kerry

In order to be in the cabinet, a minister must first be a member of parliament. They continue their local duties while in office, and if they lose a local election and therefore the constituency, they lose their ministerial post. Pelham was the Member of Parliament for Sussex, and was therefore in the House of Commons (Congress). He had all the support for legislation he needed, with a large base in the House of Lords as well. However, when he died, his brother, the Duke of Newcastle, stepped in to replace him. Since he was a Duke, he was a member of the House of Lords. This meant that he had more support in the Upper House than the Lower House, just like Obama. His fragile hold on Parliament was shattered when Minorca fell, and he was quickly ejected from office to be replaced by the Duke of Devonshire. Devonshire was despised by many elements of his party, and when the time came for the 1757 elections, he was replaced by Newcastle again, though it was through a coalition with Pitt's faction, the Chathamites. This resulted in a government with strong support in both Houses, and allowed the government to pave the way for the Annus Mirabilis of 1759, and though the government was removed in favour of Bute's anti-war government, the war was effectively won by 1761, when Russia left the war. Pitt was somewhat sidelined after Bute's election, and became prime minister after the war ended.

With regards to his boastful rhetoric; that was present in every politician in the eighteenth century. Similar to modern politics in America, one simply could not be elected unless one bombastically applauded national supremacy and religious fanaticism. Pitt was probably the best orator of the eighteenth century, and could easily sway parliament towards his way of thinking, and was known for destroying opponents with witty and powerful retorts. His son was probably chiefly responsible for the establishment of the Raj, and it is interesting to note that the first notable Governor General of Bengal was none other than Lord Cornwallis, after the failure of his American campaigns.
Debate Round No. 2


I hear you, but I will say this: Protestant countries of that time show a disturbingly elitist pattern in regards to who they conquer. Whereas other nations saw it in their hearts to win converts, like Catholic countries sent missionaries. Buddhists, etc. Protestant countries just thought it was fun to conquer, like for the heck of it. Denmark and England were known for this. If anything Pitt's conquering style matches that of the Scandinavian countries. We can even thank Scandinavian influence for the empire, because Pitt, being a Flemish surname, came from the Flemish people that immigrated to England. They were probably the only Germanic influence in England. The Anglo-Saxons didn't make too much imprint, the only exception maybe the Northeast of England. But the Flemish immigrated to all parts of England. Anyways, the claim that, "Oh other cultures did it," is really not true. There were peaceful peoples and tribes in history. Anyways, Pitt was a war general for an imperialist country. I suspect that he did all he thought he can get away with. In non imperialist countries, rape can happen, but it's general condemned. Germany wasn't an imperialist country, and there were a few atrocities, but the Germans condemned it. Spain wasn't really an imperialist country either. Yes they colonized, much like Germany, but any atrocities were condemned by the Spanish. I hate to break to you friend, but England and Denmark never really condemned their countries' atrocities. There was indifference so to say. While every leader of that time was like that, Pitt's boastfulness had very grave consequences. It led to a century or so of misery by the Indians and Irish, since Pitt the Younger officially was the one to annex Ireland.


The Catholic countries were just as bad as the Protestant ones when it came to colonial genocide. I would say that the main cause was capitalism or mercantilism. The first three major atrocities in modern history (a term I use to say from the renaissance onwards) were commited by Catholic Spain and the Islamic Ottoman Empire. The expulsion of the Muslims and Jews from Spain as part of the Reconquista was a major act of effective genocide, since it resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocents. It was perpetrated by the Spanish crown as a way of confiscating the estates of the Muslims and the property of the Jews. The second atrocity committed by the Spanish was the genocide of the Mesoamerican peoples. This was partly to gain new lands to exploit, since they had nowhere left to conquer now that they had completed the invasion of Al Andalus; but a deeper reason was the rise of mercantilism. Mercantilism is based on bullion reserves, which form a gold and silver standard to regulate currency value. In Europe, almost all gold came from the Balkans, which were under the control of the Ottomans, or were under threat of becoming under Ottoman control. A new source of gold and silver was needed, and they found huge reserves of gold and silver, both in the form of treasures to melt down and in ore mines. In Europe in the Sixteenth Century, there was a circular trade in wheat and gold. Wheat was grown in Northeast Europe, and was then moved to Central Europe where it was traded for gold. This is why cities such as Frankfurt, Vienna, Strasbourg and Zurich are financial centres now. This caused Spain to be Europe's preeminent power until the reign of Louis XIV of France caused it to drift into obscurity, as well as the fact that the Spanish Royal Family was getting increasingly narrower in terms of its genepool, culminating in Charles II, who was impotent, among other things, which caused the extinction of the dynasty as I mentioned in R1. Contrary to what you say, no apology has ever been issued by the Spanish or Portuguese governments for their actions in the New World, the effects of which have permeated to the modern era. The Ottomans also carried out several horrible crimes in North Africa at this time, namely the North African Slave Trade. This was largely based in Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, and it is estimated that privateers from the countries captured and sold a million people into slavery, one million being a very conservative estimate, over the course of three hundred years. The nineteenth century also saw a large number of genocides committed by non-protestants, as well as the more gentle forms of colonisation you describe such as missionary work being carried out by protestant countries. People such as Dr David Livingstone, who embarked on an Anglican mission to Central Africa to convert the indigenous populations. This was done without a drop of blood spilt, as was Britain's annexation of Uganda, which was largely done by protestant fundamentalist lobby groups that saw it as their aim to convert the peoples of the 'dark continent' to Christianity. Conversely, the Catholic French carried out huge atrocities against Algerians, Moroccans, the Tuareg and pretty much every other ethnic group contained within the French Empire. These atrocities continued right up until the 1960s when France relinquished most of its colonial empire. France issued no apology or compensation to the victims of its colonialism, and there are still people with the atrocities against the people, especially in Algeria, the supposed crown jewel of the French Empire, which endured a hundred and thirty-two years of constant French occupation. There was a backlash in one of France's colonies, Haiti, when it declared independence during the chaos of the revolution, forming a black nationalist state. The religions there were chiefly Catholic and Voodoo, and they embarked on a persecution and eventual mass murder of the white and creole inhabitants of the island. This still continues in many parts of the country, two hundred years later. Catholic Belgium also committed probably the most heinous atrocities in the Congo Free State, a state owned privately by the King as part of the Royal Estate. The main export of the Congo Free State was rubber to Europe to be processed into electronics and car tyres and etcetera, and he carved out many vast plantations from the jungle. With the help of the Force Publique, a militia group composed of local natives, mostly from the warrior tribes that had a history of inter-tribal warfare with the others, and led by Belgian army officers. They were armed with rifles and machetes, with the former seeing far less use than the latter. They were infamous for brutality, and committed mass murder, rape, mutilations and burned whole villages and fields to force the locals onto the plantations as their only livelihood. If they failed to produce the rubber quota, they would lose a limb, or one of their close family members would. It was by no means a secular occupation either; they built hundreds of churches across the Congo Free State, and in one offshoot, Rwanda, the Catholic Church played a major part in the genocide in the 1990s there. No apologies or compensation has been made either by the Belgian Government, Belgian Royal Family or the Catholic Church for the incidents there, and the Belgian Royal Family are perfectly happy to live in their vast and numerous palaces across Belgium blissfully ignorant or uncaring about the means for production there. There is also the Chinese destructive imperialism that has lasted since the Ming Dynasty and still continues in western China and Tibet. The main religion in China is Confucianism and its offshoots such as Taoism, and no apology has been issued, and the atrocities go on. So the main cause of aggressive colonial expansionism is capitalism. People want more money, and they are willing to do all kinds of horrible and disgusting things to acquire more of it.

With regards to what you said about Pitt being the only Germanic influence in Britain at the time, it is a complete untruth. The Royal Family was the Hanoverian Dynasty. George I, the father and grandfather of George II and III respectively, was from Hanover. In fact, for the duration of his reign, he never even bothered to learn to speak English, and in court, the chief language spoken was German. Most of the haute aristocracy was German, and Britain owned a huge chunk of northern Germany called Hanover. That was why it made the alliance with Prussia - to get Prussia, Europe's land power, to protect it against the French.

Pitt was not a general, he was a statesman. Pitt the Elder did serve briefly as military paymaster in the 1740s, but this was an honorary title. Pitt the Younger did annex Ireland in the 1801 Act of Union, but it had been under effective British control since the 1150s. The English invaded it under Henry II, and while only about two thirds of Ireland were owned by England and later Britain per se, the third that remained was barren wasteland, ruled by fiefdoms that were effectively vassals of Britain. The hardships began in the 16th century during the Reformation, when Protestant troops put down a Catholic Rebellion in the region, killing many locals. In the War of the Three Kingdoms, Oliver Cromwell did a sort-of ethnic cleansing campaign against the Irish, razing towns such as Drogheda and killing thousands of people. The English and Scottish landowners ran Ireland like a Medieval feudal society, and the harsh conditions prompted Jonathan Swift, the Irish author of Gulliver's Travels, to write the essay 'A Modest Proposal', in which he said that the best way to deal with the Irish problems was for the landowners to breed the Irish to eat their young. This was, of course, a satire that drew attention to the fact that the landowners were treating the Irish people as little better than chattel. Capitalism was again responsible for the Potato Famine, which caused first of all as a cost-cutting exercise, the landowners used imported guano as fertiliser. Guano is basically semi-decomposed seagull excrement, and was a very cheap and effective fertiliser. However, since it was full of all kinds of pathogens that existed in the seagulls' digestive system, as well as the pathogens that flourish on fecal matter, it brought over a fungus that spread like wildfire across the potato crops. Since Ireland's main crop was the potato, the farmers had nothing to eat or sell, and about a million people died. The crisis was exacerbated by capitalism also, as the Invisible Hand was supposed to prevail, and the rising cost of food was supposed to inspire farmers to grow more of it, instead, the farmers in England burnt excess crops en masse, since it had been an incredible harvest there and the price of wheat and oats plummeted due to supply and demand, so as to raise their prices and make more money.

Humans' greed is what motivates them to do ghastly things to others, not cultural or religious differences. Greed is universal, as are the problems created by it.
Debate Round No. 3


Here's a different. Protestant countries didn't commit genocide, like Catholics or Muslims did. But, and this is not to condone genocide, death is more merciful than torture and segregation, which Protestant countries often resorted to. Sure, they didn't go around exterminating a group of people. They just thought it was fun to take groups and torture them til they got what they want, and rape the indigenous people. Sure they didn't kill them, but torture was fun game for the English and Danish. Remember, the torture camps in India? Greenland? Cause Denmark had them too. Remember, you're right genocide was not committed by Protestant countries, but torture is definitely something a lot of Protestant countries did. And to be honest, they were elitist. The only country that might have had Protestant missionaries was Germany, and it ain't even a Protestant country. But there were Catholic missionaries. The major Protestant countries were elitist.


There is no difference.

Catholic Austria ruled over Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Northeast Italy and Czechoslovakia, subjecting the locals to torture and segregation. It was like the white minority governments in post-colonial countries like Rhodesia and South Africa, where there was a country ruled primarily by an ethnic minority (Germans) over an overwhelming majority (Slavs). Slavs had no rights, and only a core of the aristocracy that was intermarried with the Austrians was given any sort of adequate treatment.

The same can be said for France's colonial possessions. They were ruled by a small minority of creoles, and the locals were used as militia and law enforcement to carry out the nasty jobs, while the French lived comfortably. The French tortured, looted, pillaged and raped their way across North Africa, and they were almost exclusively Catholic.

Similarly, Portugal, another Catholic country, operated a colonial regime in Angola and Mozambique like any other. There was a ruling class of Portuguese, and the Africans were there as their servants.

A modern example is Israel, a country that self-identifies as Jewish. The predominantly Islamic Palestinians are sidelined, being forced into what Noam Chomsky described on a visit as 'The World's Largest Open Air Prison'. If one was to go to Downtown Tel Aviv, one could easily mistake it for Los Angeles or San Francisco, but if one was to go thirty or forty miles inland, or keep on following the coastline, one would encounter living conditions that could easily be equated with some of the more sordid areas of Africa and India. Palestinians are subject to torture, dispossession and disenfranchisement at the hands of the Israeli persecutors, and conditions have been compared to the Warsaw Ghetto or the treatment of opposing tribes by the British. No apology has been issued, and it carries on.

Persecution, genocide and torture occur in all cultures and religions; to divide them based on this is incredibly stupid.
Debate Round No. 4


What's the definition of genocide? "The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation." Granted, the English and Danes were extremely hateful of those they conquered by they didn't attempt genocide. By standards, they didn't commit genocide. Technology was not advanced to allow something like that to even happen. It wasn't possible, at least til the Nazis perfected that. What the English and Danish did a lot was massacring. I mean, real genocide really didn't exist until the Ottomans tried to deliberately kill Christians in the late 19th/early 20th century. OK, you're right, religion has nothing to do with it. Greed is a big part of what people do. I agree with you on that. But let's not overlook that England, Denmark and Sweden did very atrocious things. Denmark had a pretty big empire in its heyday (quite a couple of islands in the Caribbean, and Greenland)
Anyways, my opinion stands with evidence. This war was about England warmongering to becoming a power.
"In 1754, English forces under George Washington had begun their march to Fort Duquesne for the purposes of ousting the French from the region by force. On the way, they encountered a French scouting party near present-day Uniontown, Pennsylvania. Washington"s men massacred the party in what came to be known as The Battle of Jumonville Glen. Washington soon took camp at Great Meadows, a large natural clearing, and ordered the construction of Fort Necessity in anticipation of a French response. The French did respond, as 600 soldiers forced Washington to surrender the fort. The French and Indian War had begun." ( Mind you, the land England wanted was not the same as the land the colonialists had. The colonialists, British and French alike, were innocent of what the government was trying to do. I'm talking mostly about the Crown, being greedy, and wanting more land they can conquer. "The immediate cause of the French and Indian War was the British policy of ousting the French from the upper Ohio River valley. The French wanted this region because it would link their possessions from Canada to Louisiana. They planned a series of forts as connecting links. French control impeded British aims to expand westward. English merchants and Virginia planters, including George Washington's brother, Lawrence, formed the Ohio Company in 1749 to settle the Ohio area." ( So overall, the English were greedy. Trying to take over land that was already French/Native American (specifically the Hurons and Iriquois, one of whom was against the French, the other who was neutral).
Pitt the Elder
"Pitt, the first real Imperialist in modern English history, was the directing mind in the expansion of his country, and with him the beginning of empire is rightly associated. The Seven Years' War might well, moreover, have been another Thirty Years' War if Pitt had not furnished Frederick with an annual subsidy of "700,000, and in addition relieved him of the task of defending western Germany against France: this was the policy that allowed Pitt to boast of having 'won Canada on the banks of the Rhine'.
Contemporary opinion was, of course, incompetent to estimate the permanent results gained for the country by the brilliant foreign policy of Pitt. It has long been generally agreed that by several of his most costly expeditions nothing was really won but glory: the policy of diversionary attacks on places like Rochefort was memorably described as 'breaking windows with gold guineas'. It has even been said that the only permanent acquisition that England owed directly to him was her Canadian dominion; and, strictly speaking, this is true, it being admitted that the campaign by which the Indian empire was virtually won was not planned by him, though brought to a successful issue during his ministry.
But material aggrandisement, though the only tangible, is not the only real or lasting effect of a war policy. More may be gained by crushing a formidable rival than by conquering a province. The loss of her Canadian possessions was only one of a series of disasters suffered by France, which included the victories at sea of Boscawen at Lagos and Hawke at Quiberon Bay. Such defeats radically affected the future of Europe and the world. Deprived of her most valuable colonies both in the East and in the West, and thoroughly defeated on the continent, France's humiliation was the beginning of a new epoch in history.
The victorious policy of Pitt destroyed the military prestige which repeated experience has shown to be in France as in no other country the very life of monarchy, and thus was not the least of the influences that slowly brought about the French Revolution. It effectually deprived France of the lead in the councils of Europe which she had hitherto arrogated to herself, and so affected the whole course of continental politics. It is such far-reaching results as these, and not the mere acquisition of a single colony, however valuable, that constitute Pitt's claim to be considered as the most powerful minister that ever guided the foreign policy of England." ( That shows him for the piece of scum he was.
"His first major piece of legislation as Prime Minister was the India Act 1784, which re-organised the British East India Company and kept a watch over corruption. The India Act created a new Board of Control to oversee the affairs of the East India Company. It differed from Fox's failed India Bill 1783 and specified that the Board would be appointed by the King.[28] Pitt was appointed, along with Lord Sydney who was appointed President.[28] The Act centralised British rule in India by reducing the power of the Governors of Bombay and Madras and by increasing that of the Governor-General, Charles Cornwallis. Further augmentations and clarifications of the Governor-General's authority were made in 1786, presumably by Lord Sydney, and presumably as a result of the Company's setting up of Penang with their own Superintended (Governor), Captain Francis Light, in 1786." ( He pretty much started the Raj if you wanna put it that way.


Why the focus on Denmark and Sweden anyway? The Danish empire at the moment consists of Denmark itself and the vast wasteland of Greenland that is home to fifty thousand people; and at its height consisted of a few isolated possessions overseas. The Swedish Empire at its height encompassed Sweden, Finland and some narrow strips of land among the Baltic Coast. It's not really anything of much note outside the 17th century. Britain has committed genocides anyway. You've got distributing infected blankets to the Native Americans with the express desire of spreading infections among their populations; paying prisoners to hunt Aboriginal Tasmanians; the use of hunger and starvation as weapons against the Indian population, killing over a two hundred year period about two billion people; the Irish Potato Famine; the Boer War; the use of poison gas against the Iraqis in the 1920s; the bombing of Dresden; and all the corrupt dictators it has supported since, such as Suharto, Pinochet, Marcos, Franco, Galtieri, etc.

If you have a flick through the book at the bottom of this paragraph, you'll see that France and Britain had mutually exclusive ambitions. France wanted to increase its power on Continental Europe, while Britain wanted to increase its power in the colonies. The ultimate ambition of France was to extend its eastern borders to the Rhine, Alps and Pyrenees, something Napoleon managed to do half a century later. This would turn France into the most powerful state in Europe once again, allowing it to have an influence over the German and Italian states. This would be against Prussia's agenda of hegemony over Germany, as well as Austria's in Italy. The ultimate ambition of Britain was to perpetually expand its colonies so as to create an economy based on internal trade in raw materials such as iron or timber and non-industrial consumer goods such as silk and spices. Britain would import the materials and turn them into both consumer goods and capital goods to fuel its economic expansion. Unfortunately, France held colonies in the Americas and India, and also would object to Britain's emergence as an economic power.

This state of conflicting ambitions created a powder keg that was ready to explode at a moment's notice. There were two triggers - the French invasion of Minorca, an island near Spain, and the skirmish at Uniontown. The 'Battle' of Jumonville Glen' was not a major event, it has just been exaggerated because it involved George Washington. It was a skirmish involving about thirty or forty men on each side, in which two groups of militia fought over a border dispute. This was responded to by the French, who saw the British building a fort inside their own territory as a threat, who sent troops across the river into British territory to seize a fort. As you said, the numbers did not exceed a thousand, therefore it cannot really be considered a serious military action. It was a French pre-emptive strike against Britain, to prevent it from building Fort Prince George, which could challenge French Hegemony in the area. The Fall of Minorca was another key event. Although the island did not fall until June, the French began besieging it in April, which was when war was actually declared.

Therefore the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the war was justified by Britain because it was as a result of it defending Minorca from the French.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
I was waiting and there you came. Debate at your own free will.
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Present your argument before the audience
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Nevermind you can debate
Posted by Adam2 3 years ago
Let me see if I wanna choose someone
Cause someone asked me to debate
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
If we debate it, can I justify it in terms of it supporting British interests in the theatre?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con idiotically seemed more intent on slandering the English rather then even try to make a sound argument for the debate topic, and pro ran away with this one pretty early by showing how the war was indeed justified