Your argument rests on the notion that politicians are not representative of their cultures. Clausewitz defined war as politics by another means, but he never

Your argument rests on the notion that politicians are not representative of their cultures. Clausewitz defined war as politics by another means, but he never said politics is independent of culture. Whether intentionally or not, a country's culture and value system gives rise to it's political system which in turn gives rise to it's foreign policy. I would argue that the major wars are the result of incompatible value systems growing into each other. When one culture values something enough to die for it, and the other culture despises that thing and is willing to die to prevent it, there is not much that can be done. It's like icebergs colliding. The most deft political maneuvering will not stop two immovable forces from bearing down on one another. The Confederacy was a largely grass roots movement. It did not rise out of a squabble between Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. They died in enormous numbers because they believed that their economic future depended on slavery. Southern farmers risked their lives and livelihood to quarter Confederate soldiers and pass them intelligence on Union positions. It was not a political squabble that caused this. It was a deeply held belief that they were right and the other was wrong. The Bolsheviks were disgusted with the ruling order and millions laid down their lives to change it. Sure Lenin was a clever old dog but it's not like he created something that wasn't already there. He merely capitalized on existing forces. Whether they knew it or not a the time the Russians chose the Soviet Union. Perhaps they didn't hold elections but they voted with their blood. Hitler was the most effective manipulator of all but even he did not cause WW-II. German bitterness over WW-I and their sense of racial superiority caused WW-II. Hitler just really understood the German conscious and captured the mood. Hitler would not have been possible in England. I'm reminded of the Sequoia slide show at startup school. "An entrepreneur can't create a wave but he can ride one." I think the same is true of politicians. There cultural forces that form a society are the politicians raw materials. If they are diametrically opposed to those of their neighbors then war is a likely outcome no matter who the politicians are. An economy where grain is distributed from Moscow cannot coexist with an economy where grain is distributed by farmers and businesses. A culture where slaves are as important to them as laptops are to Silicon Valley will not be able to co-exist with a more industrialized culture who no longer needs slaves and simultaneously values human rights. And a culture that believes that they are the master race sent to purge the impure from the world can't co-exist with anyone at all. The politicians are just enablers. Diabolical and brilliant, to be sure, but they can't conjure what they steer.