Posted on 03/06/2022 6:03:17 AM PST by FarCenter
World War I had no good guys and no winners. France rightly sought the return of the provinces Germany had annexed in 1870. Russia rightly feared that German influence would sever its industrial centers and tax base in the Western parts of it its empire; England feared that Germany would encroach on its overseas empire; Germany feared that Russia’s railroad system would overcome its advantage in mobility and firepower. None of them wanted a war, but each of them decided that it was better to fight in 1914 than fight later at a disadvantage.
Historian Christopher Clark in his 2013 book The Sleepwalkers forever buried the black legend of German aggression in 1914, with proof from Russian archives that the Czar’s mobilization – with French incitement – provoked the outbreak of war. There’s no hero to cheer, no villain to boo in the first tragedy of the 20th century, just mediocre and small-minded politicians unable to step back from the brink.
All of them acted rationally in the pursuit of their vital interests, but at the same stupidly as well as wickedly, and the ensuing world wars undid the achievements of a thousand years of Western civilization. We look back to 1914 in horror, and wonder how the leaders of the West could have been so pig-headed. Nonetheless, we are doing it again today.
(Excerpt) Read more at asiatimes.com ...
...forever buried the black legend of German aggression in 1914, with proof from Russian archives that the Czar’s mobilization – with French incitement – provoked the outbreak of war.
Anyone aware of a tie-breaker?
watch the documentary on Stalin and how he dealt with the Ukrainians
Great Powers struggle with each other.
After Napoleon was defeated in 1815, Europe had a long stretch of near peace, broken by fairly inconsequential wars (Crimean, Franco-Prussia, etc.). That lasted until 1914 when it all went to hell.
After Hitler was defeated in 1945, Europe has had a long stretch of near peace, broken by fairly inconsequential conflict (Hungary, Yugoslavia, etc.). I’d say the fall of the Soviet Union has never really resolved itself and now 30 years after the fact, steps are being taken to see if the old Russian Empire can be re-established.
This sort of thing is inevitable. Only the dead have seen the end of war.
For me, the two great evils are nuclear conflict, and one world government. Both should be avoided. One offers death, the other, slavery.
Hear, hear.
Your wisdom will be wasted on most here
The Causes of WWI
Baldrick: The thing is: The way I see it, these days there’s a war on, right? and, ages ago, there wasn’t a war on, right? So, there must have been a moment when there not being a war on went away, right? and there being a war on came along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?
Edmund: Do you mean “Why did the war start?”
Baldrick: Yeah.
George: The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire-building.
Edmund: George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganyika. I hardly think that we can be entirely absolved of blame on the imperialistic front.
George: Oh, no, sir, absolutely not. [aside, to Baldick] Mad as a bicycle!
Baldrick: I heard that it started when a bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich ‘cause he was hungry.
Edmund: I think you mean it started when the Archduke of Austro-Hungary got shot.
Baldrick: Nah, there was definitely an ostrich involved, sir.
Edmund: Well, possibly. But the real reason for the whole thing was that it was too much effort not to have a war.
George: By Golly, this is interesting; I always loved history...
Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast opposing armies, each acting as the other’s deterrent. That way there could never be a war.
Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn’t it, sir?
Edmund: Yes, that’s right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.
George: What was that, sir?
Edmund: It was bollocks.
Baldrick: So the poor old ostrich died for nothing.
Nice platitude. But what's your Clearcase solution to avoid them? Appeasement? Proxy war? Quick and decisive war?
Rehashing WWI is like rehashing the Kennedy assassination, except one has too much information and the other has too little.
I’ll say this (having read over a dozen books about the roots of WWI, and not wanting to bloviate on a Sunday morn)...Europeans in 1914 had a tradition of war, a memory of it; it was always “on the table.” War settled things. A last resort, but not an end of all human life. You could opt for war and imagine it would be swift and decisive, and followed by a morning after.
Georges Clemenceau, a French statesman of the era, PM in 1917, had once engaged in a duel in which six shots were exchanged and nobody got hurt — but it settled things. Like all politicians of the day, he was confident he would not himself get nicked by a European conflict.
Anyone who does that today, who thinks a good outcome is right around the bend, is mentally around the bend.
The stakes are higher now. War is no longer instant chaos, chronic destruction and gradual exhaustion. Extinction is now a possible outcome.
If Putin continues to think like a 19th c thinker, a Napoleon or a Hitler, he will be removed from his overstretched table.
War and control of the populace have been the process thru
time of the human element. Don’t look for it to change that
much imo. Someone is always trying to control. Look at the
civilizations thru history. There were controllers and followers.
Clark's book came out more than a half-century later, when more documents became available.
How about peaceful commerce.
Putin is thinking like an 18th century leader, Peter the Great, and he's refighting the 1709 Battle of Poltava, the outcome of which delivered the lands of Ukraine into Russian hands.
“If Putin continues to think like a 19th c thinker, a Napoleon or a Hitler, he will be removed from his overstretched table.”
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I have posted many times here that Putin is playing Stratego with real countries! WWI was a catastrophe because everyone was playing by the rules of the Nineteenth Century, while not understanding that warfare had become killing on an industrial scale in the Twentieth. Putin surely knows enough history to see the potentially horrific endgame his actions might lead to, but like Hitler after the Rhineland occupation, Austria, and Czechoslovakia, has convinced himself that the West is weak and won’t move to block him.
Which documentary?
Dittos.
Black Adder is a most excellent series, and at least plausibly accurate.
Dark humor aside, there are no Good Guys in this conflict
The Soviets did not lose militarily. They just have up because their system was failing. But yes, Russia wants to reunite the squad. I think the Russians will make a play for Dnieper River then they will be open to negotiations. Rump state of Ukraine remains in the west. Russia will annex eastern Ukraine. Moldova is probably next. In fact, there's already a Russian speaking break away region in the country.
I see two general cases which need to be addressed --
1) Someone wants to "takeover the world" through armed conflict. (ex. Napoleon, Hitler)
2) Some Great Power crosses a border, because that's what Great Powers do.
The first case is obviously the harder one. But it's rare. Think back to the 1950s-1980s. Do we really think the USSR was trying to take over the world? Was the US trying to take over the world? Both sides spoke about it as if the other side was doing that, but I think it wasn't really true. And neither side ever felt compelled to attack the other, so it was all pretty ephemeral.
People like Napoleon and Hitler are pretty rare. When you see one, you'll probably know it, and then we can sit down and talk about "What should we do?"
The second case is much simpler. Don't get involved. The US should not be involved in European wars. And this goes beyond the US. Think about 1914 -- Some Serb from Bosnia shot the Archduke. Sounds like an Austro-Hungarian problem to me. But the idiot diplomats had created a situation where it became a Russian, French, German problem. Then Belgium. Then Britain. That didn't turn out well.
Ukraine was once part of the Russian Empire. Does it "belong" inside or outside of Russia? I don't know. I don't care. That situation over on the Black Sea only gets ugly if everyone in the world feels that they need to have an opinion and that they need to get involved. That's how things blow up.
Danny TN- it cannot be avoided at this point. When you look at the middle east, Israel and its alignments, Russia and its alignments, The EU and the rise of global governance, we have entered the end of days clearly laid out in the Bible 2000 to 2700 years ago. The detail of which was not even possible 100 years ago, but started to come into focus about 50 years ago. And now is clear to see for anyone willing to look.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.