# data[].attributes.body
The reason as to why having peace, difficult to maintain, is because not all people agree on the same thing(s), which lead to conflict instead of peace. There is usually peace when people agree, if everyone agreed with each other, there would be peace. This is why a lasting peace is so difficult to maintain, not everyone agrees on the same ideas.

# data[].attributes.body
Nations resort to war because when they don't agree on the same thing, they don't want that idea to linger around. For example, if Americans didn't like the Mexicans to be Communist, and the Mexicans don't want to stop, they'll often wage to war in order to destroy their ideas and make them pay the price.

# data[].attributes.body
Resources, conflict between other nations, religion, trade,

# data[].attributes.body
Historians have different perspectives because they have different origins and places where they watched the war. For example, if a historian was in Japan, he would talk about how there was a lot of destruction there, as oppose to historian in America, saying something else. This is simply because historians are in different places, so they see different things. Additionally, there are different people, different beliefs, different cultures, and everything in between. That is why historians have different perspectives of war.

# data[].attributes.body
A lot of events come before war. There are many narratives and many opinions. Everyone has different opinions on the events before a war and which ones were important. The truth is never complete, because we would have to be completely unbiased, which is nearly impossible, and we would have to get the people involved (a number we can never be sure of) to tell us why they made choices. Historians can only follow narratives, opinions and obvious facts. At the end of the day, we are all mere humans with biased opinions and that will never helps us see all the information and cause. The truth is that war doesn't always have justification, people take whatever they want through violence. Sometimes there is just selfishness and corruption instead of war.

# data[].attributes.body
War can be prevented and maintained when there are agreements between the countries, when there is a bond between them. This is how peace can be established, if they both agree on something that they can both live up to the promise. By "both," I mean the countries.

# data[].attributes.body
Many people don't agree on the same things. People have different opinions and views on certain things which can lead to conflict between nations.

# data[].attributes.body
-  Economic gain
- Wanting more land
- Religion
-  Wanting to prove that your country is stronger (I think that's Nationalism?)
- They want to seek revenge
- Disagreements within the country
- Defense

# data[].attributes.body
Some historians could be biased. Different historians can have different opinions on what triggers a war. Historians can also read sources which are biased or fabricated and can lead to a difference in opinion in how a war was caused.

# data[].attributes.body
Like animals, humans follow their instincts. When a human leader needs more resources, they think that exploiting other countries to get them is the way to go. When a leader has disagreements with another leader, they think war is the way to go. Religion, resources, revenge, opinions, emotions, and basically anything else a normal person would start a fight about, a nation can justify a war with. This is just the biological ways. A human brain was designed to survive as an individual and as a species. It is easier to win an argument with weapons and fists, than finding evidence and logic. We learn logic and how to understand evidence, violence is about survival, so it is nature.From corruption to resources, it is easier to solve problems by blaming things with no evidence and with weapons, than finding a logical and just solution. In conclusion, war is violence and it can start by many reason and it is very easy to maintain, because  it is a part of our instincts. My honest answer to this is that it is easier to get what we want without justifying it, and that is what war is.

# data[].attributes.body
Wars very rarely have "a" cause. Usually there are a number of reasons why countries wage war and a number of factors that can lead to conflict. Historians might then disagree about which of these factors is more important than the others. For example, some historians think that World War 2 in the Pacific was caused by Japanese economic expansionism, while others would point to American efforts to maintain poltical control over the region.

# data[].attributes.body
There are many reasons nations resort to waging war such as a difference in opinion, misunderstandings and different views on religion, culture, beliefs and morals.

# data[].attributes.body
War can be prevented to a great extent. There are many different ways that a war can be prevented, but it is very hard.

# data[].attributes.body
The reasons to why nations resort to waging war are due to different views on religion, civil war, revenge and disagreement etc.

# data[].attributes.body
Peace is hard to attain because people lack vision of how life would be in a peaceful state. Lack of education, and ignorance+ illiteracy allows exploitation to occur. The endless struggle over global resources and wealth has people blinded and prioritizing themselves. While there is nothing wrong with putting one first, the ideas of compromise and sacrifice is nonexistent. With that comes the issue of finding common ground with others, and since not all agree on the same ideas, conflict arises. And even though a solution found in the moment seems best, it is prone to subjectivity by others when it is no longer relevant/ supportive of them, and that leads to even more issues and less peace.

Not to mention,  looking at human nature is a factor as well. I believe that causing conflict is easier than stepping back, evaluating the situation logically, and then acting upon it accordingly. It requires less goodwill to create chaos than it is to maintain peace. And in my opinion, looking at past wars, many figures have acted out on fury and revenge, rather than reason and long term benefit.

# data[].attributes.body
Peace is hard to maintain because it is harder to maintain than war. Peace needs reason, justice, and self control/awareness. Sometimes it is easier to just act upon stimuli of the environment and circumstance with violence instead of reason. At the end of the day, long-lasting peace needs absolute trust and collaboration. That is much harder than taking what we want without having to justify it. Lack of education, resources, justice, equality, and empathy are the concepts that are missing and that create corruption and war. Or maybe there is no reason to anything, everything is random and chaotic, we have no control over anything, and we are destined to die alone and angry

# data[].attributes.body
The reason why nations resort to waging  wars is because of many reasons, such as:
- Fighting over religion
- Disagreeing on many things
- One country disagreeing on another country on doing something.
The other reason is When one country wants to invade and control over another country and take their goods

# data[].attributes.body
That is a question everyone wants to answer. The answer maybe that we can't prevent war as long as people don't understand concepts of empathy, unity, justice, looking at the world that is not black and white, without bad and good, without wants, but needs. Education is a crucial part of this. Good education. Because even if there are psychopaths, the people of a country don't get that person to power. There are obstacles, but if there is such thing as a perfect world, which I doubt, education, parenthood and the understanding of these concepts could get us closer to long-lasting peace.

# data[].attributes.body
Lasting peace is difficult to maintain due to the fact that it is in human nature to feel the urge to cause conflict when there is a disagreement.

# data[].attributes.body
Because the two countries might not want the same thing to happen which would lead to war and the winning country decides on what to do.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why Can't Historians Agree on Past Events? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Why Can't Historians Agree on Past Events? 

# data[].attributes.body
To begin with, historians who analyze the causes of wars were not a part of it, so what they use to determine a cause are primary sources that can be both objective and subjective. If they truly wanted to know the true cause of a war, they would need to be unbiased. I think that is extremely hard to do so since it is of human nature to have an opinion. Not to mention, there is never really one solid cause to why a war starts. A group of long+short term and immediate factors play a role. Since we have many different factors, concluding on the most effective one is where the disagreements and clash of opinions occur. In addition, coming from different parts of the world plays a role on how the historian perceives a war. Not all countries in wars are innocent, and if you happen to be from one that isn't, you would be selective of what you analyze and what you choose to mention or not. Having the full truth is impossible, and since there is no universal layout of each war objectively, the causes of a war is prone to having different perspectives.

Also, with time those opinions may change as well, thus creating even more points of views on a situation.

# data[].attributes.body
Historians have different perspectives on the causes of war because there is usually multiple causes.

# data[].attributes.body
To no extent, it is impossible.

# data[].attributes.body
It depends on where the historian comes from.

# data[].attributes.body
Historians have different perspectives due to the number of causes that lead to that conflict. Every historian has a different point of view on the situation.

# data[].attributes.headline
War VS Peace: Can We Control what Occurs?

# data[].attributes.subject
War VS Peace: Can We Control what Occurs?

# data[].attributes.body
Do I think we will ever gain full control of whether or not a war will occur? No, and this is because of the 'oblivious factor'. Even though we can't 100% say no to war, there are ways in which it can be contained. The UN's peacemaking mission is one. Forming treaties is two. Befriending countries to support each other is three. Understanding is four. But even with understanding, each country will prioritize themselves and see how they can take advantage of a situation to suit them best. There is no formula that completely blocks out all signs of war and enhances peace. War can be prevented, but maintaining peace is the hard part.