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

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. http://books.google.co.uk... 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.