"Ever since its foundation, the Alliance exists as opposition to Horde aggression and a defensive pact against an existential threat. The Horde, to its credit has an aspect of nobility in claiming to strive for the agency and self fulfilment of its constituent states against the Alliance that would rather they not be Horde.
Each faction exists fundamentally in opposition to one another and their very existence is predicated upon the premise of the other being a threat to their lives. Were this to change and the cause of concern to wilt, the necessity of these coalitions would erode as each state would be free to pursue their own priorities rather than be continuously lashed back into conformity by perpetual crisis.
The question, then, as with all such politics is who benefits? When the agency of nations is bound by central will, their leadership bear great responsibility to steer the ship lest it crash upon the rocks. Why have another war for land and pride when the world’s armies are regularly demonstrated to be in dire need of combined arms against greater threats, be they man’ari, the black empire or some unforseen calamity like time travelling invaders?
War is a choice, and those who call for it must justify why others must die for their ambition on both sides. It is a moral question beyond immediate practicality so where and when does war become justified? What desperate plea can shake the notion that we must still hold true in grudging cooperation for a safer world?
My answer is crisis, for now. Should great starvation strike and vast swathes of land be uninhabitable, how will we manage to pool our resources to aid one another in spite of old wounds when it is simpler to lift the sword to claim another’s grain?
I should hope the Horde has tired of expedient appeals to shatter peace out of fear and that the Alliance knows to build tall in anticipation rather than follow a well trodden trail. But again, who benefits from forever being in opposition to another? Who benefits from this lowest possible political expediency without ever having to justify the shape of the map beyond Them? The collective anxiety of mere membership in such organization is primed to boil over into chaos.
Even in a state where none move to strike the other, the smallest spark will ignite the world. For the best efforts of the best of us, another conflict will come for the simplest reason, justified into robust practicality while the graves are dug.
These are many words to simply say no, I do not believe that peace will last. The next instigator is one I dare not name without better cause to argue, but as long as the fate and very identity of nations and people are shaped by the binary difference of these wartime coalitions, war will fuel itself much like forces of nature beyond the control of mere mortals and the first strike will always be a choice of those in power."
Question:
Which historical figure would you most wish to meet and what would you ask them?