How Pacifism Led to the Great War -- and Could Lead Us into the Next One

When then-Sen. Barack Obama made a short video for the "peace caucus" delegates to the 2008 Iowa Caucuses, he captured the enthusiastic support of his party's pacifist wing. It was enough to propel him to the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton's ad -- showing a red telephone ringing at 3 a.m. -- only emphasized to party pacifists that Obama was their man.

And, of course, leading antiwar figures like George Soros heavily bankrolled MoveOn.org and other liberal media outlets -- all echoing the same pacifist line. Pacifism -- as the name implies -- ought to lead to peace. But it too often doesn't.

In one famous case, pacifism doubtless led the world into a cataclysm. In 1914, Great Britain was governed by the Liberal Party. Their leading statesman was Sir Edward Grey, the foreign secretary.

On June 28 of that fateful year, the heirs to the thrones of Austria-Hungary, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophie, were assassinated. Serbian nationalists killed them in the Bosnian city of Sarajevo. All Europe staggered toward the abyss.

Great Britain might have stayed out of it if only Germany had not invaded Belgium. Both Germany and Britain had an eighty-year treaty to protect Belgian neutrality and territorial integrity. Sir Edward repeatedly issued statements calling upon "all parties" to honor their commitments. Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany dismissed treaties as "mere scraps of paper" and gave his generals the go-ahead to attack France through Belgium. The infamous Schlieffen Plan required that "the last man on the [German] right will brush the Channel with his sleeve." That would be the English Channel.

Sir Edward never said openly and directly to Germany: If you violate Belgian neutrality, Britain will declare war on you. Why not?

G.K. Chesterton, the famed English writer, tells us why in his memoirs. Chesterton was well-connected in Liberal Party circles. He wrote the Liberals were indebted to Manchester millionaires for their party's campaign financing. Those Manchester millionaires were religious pacifists. They would not have tolerated any blunt, direct warning to Kaiser Wilhelm from Sir Edward Grey or from the Liberals' prime minister, H.H. Asquith.

To close this loop, however, it is necessary to show that the headstrong Kaiser would have been deterred by such an unambiguous warning. Fortunately, such evidence exists.

Sir John Wheeler-Bennett is the greatest of diplomatic historians of the interwar period of 1919-1939. In the summer of 1939, Sir John visited the ex-Kaiser at his exile home in Holland. There, on the eve of a second horrific conflagration, the deposed German emperor confirmed to this young British scholar that if he had only known that Britain would declare war, he would never have allowed his generals to invade Belgium!

Thus, we see how the entire world was dragged into the cataclysm of World War I -- with its 20 million dead. Out of what Winston Churchill called the world crisis was born Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Japanese Imperialism, and Arab nationalism. We can trace to World War I some of what we are seeing on the streets of Tripoli, Cairo, and Amman even today.

I was fortunate to have Sir John Wheeler-Bennett as my professor of diplomatic history at the University of Virginia. I have not forgotten his worldly wisdom. It was thus with the deepest misgivings that I watched as our unprepared president advanced from one dangerously naïve statement to another as he sought and won the presidency.

Mr. Obama's bowing to desert despots, his fawning speech in Cairo, his signing of an appeasing treaty with Russia -- within days of the exposure of a Russian spy ring! -- all of these communicate U.S. weakness and increase the danger to steadfast American allies -- like Israel and the newly free states of Eastern Europe.

Let us hope that President Obama pulls back from his party's pacifist majority in time.

There was never a real prospect that Britain would not fight if Germany violated its treaty on Belgium. But a clear, strong "shot across the bow" might have prevented the horror of the trenches.

Ronald Reagan said that "no war in my lifetime has taken place because America was too strong." He set about rebuilding our "hollowed-out" military and repairing the damage done by four years of the invertebrate Jimmy Carter.

President Obama is gutting our defenses and broadcasting his belief that America has been the obstacle to world peace -- until, that is, the Obama administration, bedecked with olive leaves and holding doves in its extended hands, was installed. No more hazardous mindset can be imagined. Peace through strength has ever been the safest of policies for this Great Republic.

“it’s a fact well established in historical scholarship”

Actually, no it’s not.

“No one much argues with it anymore”

More handwaving.

Russia’s intervention into the balkans triggered the war, the war would have been localized had Russia not stepped in. Russian designs on the balkans were well attested, and the Serbs negotiated under the understanding that Russia would back them up.

You are distorting my argument here.

“But in this case, they are”

Right. Because they all agree with you. I’m disappointed. I was having an engaging discussion with you, and you haven’t understood my argument at all.

I am not a German. I just don’t feel that current scholarship which holds them responsible for both world wars is correct. The First is far different from the Second, if the Second is an extension of the first, neglects the fact that the two wars were very different from one another. I am not arguing that Germany was not responsible for the events of the second world war, I am arguing that they were not responsible for setting off the first world war.

With Wilson or FDR at the helm?

I don’t think it’s a coincidence at all. Seems clear to me.

Britain and Germany and France and Russia duke it out, America does it’s level best to stay out of the war. Then when Russia gets overthrown by the communists, Wilson gets a burr, and finally goes and says, ‘it’s time’, and they manage to defeat Germany and salvage Communist Russia.

Then the same thing happens in the second world war with FDR. FDR could have come in against Nazism like most of the civilized world in ‘39, but he didn’t. France falls, doesn’t lift a finger. Battle of Britain, doesn’t lift a finger. Germans at the gates of Moscow?

Time to go fight Nazis. Brilliant, really. Making the world safe for democracy? Ha. More like Communism.

“Conquer Europe?! Where did you get that whooper?”

I got that from their attempt to conquer Europe, otherwise known as WWI.

“Imperial Germany had no such goal.”

Then why’d they try? By accident?

“Even after the dominoes started to fall”

This sort of phrase is exactly the reason the general public is so confused on the issue. WWI was not a result of dominoes falling. It was the result of conscious, deliberate planning on the part of Germany.

“Germany’s broader ‘conquest’ goals were limited to Belgium, and perhaps additional colonies in Africa.”

Do you mean to say after they defeated France and Russia they would have gone back home, holding on merely to Belgium. Let’s say they would’ve. I still call launching total war with and invading the two major continental powers was ipso facto conquering the continent, no matter what they would have done afterwards.

“BTW, those who cry crockodile tears about the Belgium monarchy...never seem to care that the allies violated Greek neutrality during the war.”

It’s not so much that I cry for poor Belgium, anymore than I care about anyone being attacked for no reason. I don’t feel for the Soviet Union, but still think the Nazis were wrong to invade it. Belgium is important because Germany’s actions against it were a clear violation of international law, as well as a clear indication of their aggrandizing intentions. But most importantly, it started the war!

If the allies violated of Greece in a similar manner, no doubt it was after the war already started. You can see why doing so before there’s a war is more notable.

“which had plenty of blood on its hands in the giant prison of the Congo Free State”

Also not casus belli. Or do you argue Germany was on a humanitarian mission?

“With Wilson or FDR at the helm?”

With Wilson, it’s possible, although there is no evidence. As for FDR, if you check the records carefully enough you’ll find that there was a reason wholly apart from Russia that we entered the war in 1941. Something to do with Hawaii, I think.

“Brilliant, really. Making the world safe for democracy? Ha. More like Communism.”

I guess the sort of person who believes WWI and WWII were fought to preserve communism would be declined to accept the equally ridiculous assertion that Germany didn’t start WWI. Perhaps I should stop arguing.

Moltke is a complicated figure. He was devastated after the Battle of the Marne, after which Ludendorff and Hindenburg took over. Ludendorff came to the conclusion once the Americans entered the war, that the war was unwinnable, threw together Operation Michael as a last ditch effort to gain control of the channel, failed, and then stepped down to leave the Kaiser in charge to surrender.

Ludendorff by 1915 believed that the only way to break the stalemate was to starve out Britain with unrestricted sub warfare. That does not to me suggest that these are the actions of the man possessing the initiative.

In the meantime you have the French proposing assaults at Verdun to try to crack the German fortifications. The French! I don’t see anything from the German actions that they expected to win a two front war. The Schlieffen plan, was a direct response to the Entente, to solve what was believed at the time to be an intractable problem.

What he threw together was a last ditch one shot that if it failed, the Germans would lose, and if it succeeded, had the potential of forcing France out of the war, so that the Germans could deal with Russia. All while assuming that Britain would not honor her defense of the independence of Belgium. He even proposed to invade Holland in order to aid the general transport of troops across the low countries and improve the logistics.

His reasoning is that if you are going to wager everything on one cast of the die, you might as well go all in, so that if you do win, you win big. Moltke was not so confident. His alterations demonstrate hesitancy, that he was not at all confident in the success of the plan. Every one of his changes weakened the main thrust while attempting to cover up what he believed were the deficiencies. He put more troops in Lorraine, more troops in the east, everywhere but where they were more needed, in the sweep along the channel.

And that’s not even accounting for the logistical issues of travelling along the channel to reach from Germany to Paris sweeping along the outside in 42 days.

I do not honestly believe that Moltke believed that the Germans could win a two front war.

As for him being a cruel monster, sometimes you must fight a war that you cannot win. Bismarck understood the true strength of the German state, Kaiser Wilhelm did not.

“You mean the fact that egged on Austria-Hungary over Serbia, big fricken deal.”

The Austro-Serbian war was not WWI. They are seperate conflicts. WWI doesn’t start until Germany declares war and invades Belgium.

“If you think bailing out the Serbs justifies the slaughter of an entire generation of Europe (and to some extent) America’s brightest, you have little sense of proportion.”

I don’t know what you’re talking about. America did not bail out Serbia. In case you didn’t notice, Germany and Austria were fighting with all of Europe, not just Serbia.

I find it hard to believe that either Wilson or FDR had the true interests of the United States at heart.

If you note, I made no allegations as to him relocating the carriers. That’s entirely your argument. I don’t believe he willingly sacrificed American troops at Pearl Harbour. That was all the Japanese initiative. However the reluctance to enter the war in Europe until after Barbarossa, indicates to me that FDR cared more about Stalin than he did for Churchill and the British. Which is backed up by Yalta.

Do you know how many millions of people that the US condemned to Communism at Yalta? People who are just now getting their freedom. 60 years later.

“Actually, no it’s not.”

Yes it is. Unless you mean that in the same sense that 9/11 not being an “inside job” isn’t settled.

“More handwaving.”

You wouldn’t say that if you were familiar with the literature. I’m only repeating what I’ve heard many times from several different authors.

“Russia’s intervention into the balkans triggered the war”

Did not. Germany pulled the trigger. The guy who set off the guy who started the war was not the guy who started the war. The guy who started the war was.

“The war would have been localized had Russia not stepped in”

Perhaps, as Germany would be denied its rationalization. Still, that amounts to as much as “WWII wouldn’t have been what it was had the allies stood up to Hitler at Munich.” Maybe, but their appeasement did not start the war. Hitler did.

“Russian designs on the balkans were well attested”

Yes, obviously. Why is this an issue? If Russia considered the Balkans within their sphere of influence, how is that any different than any other power’s putative sphere? The difference is that Germany started a war to preserve and extend its sphere. Russia had “designs,” threw its weight around, “stepped in,” and so forth. But it didn’t start a war. That was left to Germany.

“You are distorting my argument here.”

I don’t see how. You’ve maintained Russia started it. All I’ve done is demonstrated they didn’t.

“The First is far different from the Second”

I honestly don’t know why people believe that. Aside from the Nazis being especially evil, that is. It is partly the blame placed on the Versaille treaty for Germany’s future woes. If the treaty was bad, it must have been wrong about “war guilt,” goes the logic.

Partly it’s the fault of misguided literature, both the imaginative variety about meaningless war and the lost generation and the prosaic variety as presented in Keynes’ “Economic Conqequence of the Peace” book and Barbara Tuchmann’s “Guns of August.”

Partly it’s because Germany had no Hitler at the time. No one to point to and say, “He started it!”

Partly it’s the whole modern drift away from power politics: the disgust with empire, the distrust of alliances, the hatred for militarism, the fear of nationalism and patriotism, and the entire modern leftist, pro-arms control ideology, holding wars happen all by themselves.

Whatever it is, it’s mistaken. Fundamentally, the wars were the same: Germany set out to conquer France and Russia, and almost did.

“if the Second is an extension of the first”

I don’t think it is. At least, not in the fatalistic manner people present it. History could always have gone differently. There are billions of ways Germany would have been prevented from starting a second giant 20th century war.

“I don’t know of one historian who regards the two as separate conflicts.”

Maybe they wouldn’t say “seperate,” but in the very least the Austria-Serbian War was a smaller war-within-the-war. It was local whereas the Entente-Central Powers War was general. Off the top of my head, I can think of Donald Kagan and David Fromkin as historians who regard them this way.

“I’m rather bemused that the one who accuses me of revisionism fails to acknowledge that the assassination of the Archduke was the spark that set off the first world war.”

Well, I acknowledge it as the spark that set off a series of events that led to WWI, yes. It’s tough, when we use phrases like “the spark that set off.” It’s nice, but doesn’t explain very much. What does it mean to “spark” and “set off” a war, anyway? Does it mean to actually directly cause a war? If so, then no, Sarajevo was not a spark. If it means it inevitably led to the wider war, then no, that would be “the Sarajevo fallacy.” If it means an important incident which alters the geopolitical situation which just so happened to result in war, then yes, you can call it that.

As I said above, Germany needed a pretext for invasion before it could institute the Schlieffen Plan without looking like a villain. As such, the assassination was an extremely important event. However, despite its importance, history has overrated it. It did not make wider war inevitable. It did not of itself set off a chain of events that led to WWI.

“But no, Germany must be the enemy, even when she isn’t”

Hold on, why this “must”? What motive do I have in manufacturing Germany’s guilt? Because I’m brainwashed into thinking Germany’s always in the wrong due to WWII? Maybe, except that I don’t hold it responsible for other wars. Because America’s cause being impure would, as an American, bring me guilt? It was so long ago that it might as well be talking about the Mexican-American War, which incidentally I do not think justified on the U.S’s part.

“I find it hard to believe that either Wilson or FDR had the true interests of the United States at heart.”

I find it hard to believe George W. Bush had the best interests of the U.S. at heart, therefore he planned 9/11.

“That’s entirely your argument.”

Not really. Or, rather, only part of my argument. Either you are a conspiracy theorists and my mention of Pearl Harbor would bring it out in the open, or you aren’t, in which case my mention of Pearl Harbor ought to cast serious doubt on whether we went to war to protect the Russians.

“I don’t believe he willingly sacrificed American troops at Pearl Harbour. That was all the Japanese initiative. However the reluctance to enter the war in Europe until after Barbarossa, indicates to me that FDR cared more about Stalin than he did for Churchill and the British.”

Why does it indicate that? Wouldn’t it be infinitely more likely he went to war in Germany because the Japanese gave him the excuse he had been looking for? Oh, and because Germany declared war on us?

“Do you know how many millions of people that the US condemned to Communism at Yalta?”

None. We didn’t help their cause, but the commies still would’ve been there whether or not we officially recognized it. You can argue the agreement paved the way for further commie incursion in Asia, but as it turns out the A-bomb made that moot point.

“His reasoning is that if you are going to wager everything on one cast of the die, you might as well go all in, so that if you do win, you win big.”

That’s exactly the mindset I imagine prevailed in Germany at the time. It is, at the same time, profoundly evil and completely outside international law and diplomatic convention.

“Moltke was not so confident. His alterations demonstrate hesitancy, that he was not at all confident in the success of the plan.”

Not confident in the specific plan, yes. As for the idea of war? Not enough not to go through with it. The Union was confident the U.S. Civil War was winnable and necessary, no matter how many battles it lost, how often its strategy changed, nor how many generals it sacked.

I’m not sure if the Schlieffen Plan was ever meant to be followed to the letter, by the way. You can’t plan in great detail something that complicated 8 years ahead of time.

“As for him being a cruel monster, sometimes you must fight a war that you cannot win.”

Only if you are attacked first. Despite everything you’ve said, that didn’t happen.

British fears were unwarranted.

Cornel

The French Navy was larger than the German at the time of the war. Let alone during the buildup.

When war broke out France had 12 effective predreadnoughts, 5 semidreadnoughts, 4 dreadnoughts with another 8 building (only 3 would be completed)

Germany had 15 effective predreadnoughts, 19 dreadnoughts with another 8 building (7 would be completed)

Germany had practically zero navy in 1870, and even by 30 years later was far inferior to even Russia.

in 1870 Turkey was a major naval power. 30 years later the Turkish Navy was about 3 ships that had actually been in service back than.

And yes in 1900, the German Navy about the a same size as the US Navy. But that was when both those Navies began expansion. (1908 Great White Fleet ring any bells?)

That they would ally with France to protect their naval supremacy is bizarre, they had just spent close to 30 years battling them to reach naval supremacy in the first place.

"Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." - Lord Palmerston (England's Greatest Prime Minister)

Yes England had spent 30 years maintaining the Two-Power Standard (effectively a Navy equal to the combined strenght of France and Russia). It could do so by its ability to design and build ships. But unlike the French, German yards could turn out a ship almost as fast as British ones. So Germany was now the contender.

And an opportunity arose. From 1902 to 1905 France had an anti-navy Minister of the Navy, who cancelled both ship building and modernisation (France would not lay down a single battleship between 1902 and 1907). So by 1905 France was not only no longer a naval threat, they were looking for a new best friend who would look kindly on France's colonial operations. And in 1904/5 the Russia Navy was also removed from consideration.

Leading to a change in British naval policy from "Two-Power" to "Germany +60%".

Germany needed a navy in the Baltic to control the straits and protect their shores.

I LOL'd. Germany needed a Navy two-third's the size of the every Ocean Royal Navy to control the Baltic?

The Carriers at Pearl is speculation. Yalta is fact. Yalta condemned eastern europe to Communism, something that Churchill tried to fight with the understanding that it was pointless to fight and die such that communism would advance.

As for the rest, most of the literature does not treat the conflict between Serbia and Austria-Hungary as a separate conflict. As a result, the culpability of Russia becomes apparent to the broadening of the scope of the war.

Of course, if you don’t see the two as linked, then you won’t see Russia as responsible for the war, as you’ve essentially turned them into a bit player. I do not believe that your analysis is correct in this matter.

Russia’s decision to back Serbia and to go to war against the Central Powers is the crucial decision in World war I to escalate the assassination of the Archduke into the second bloodiest war yet seen.

As for your argument about Bush, I’m really not sure why you are here if you are arguing that you don’t believe that Bush had the best interests of Americans in 9-11. I also don’t appreciate you labelling me a conspiracy theorist, when I’ve made no such allegations.

“Hitler came to power because of the Depression’s effects”

The depression was necessary but not sufficient.

“The infamous ‘stab in the back’ theory was sown by Hitler and Co”

Wrong. It was formulated immediately and pretty widespread.

“Most Germans had more important things on their minds than revenge for WW1.”

They probably had other things on their mind than whether Hitler was the man to cure the depression, too. He was just a guy from a marginal party who happened to be appointed chancellor in a counrty that was ideologically fractured and tired of politics as usual.

Hitler came to power because of the Depression’s effects. Before that, he was just another street brawling moron. The infamous “stab in the back” theory was sown by Hitler and Co.-Most Germans had more important things on their minds than revenge for WW1.

Versailles and the depression went together like hand in glove in Hitler's rise to power. The Depression hit a lot of countries harder than Germany, including the U.S. yet no dicator came to power. The source of the difference is the special humiliation of Versailles which Hitler was able to exploit. Without the depression (COMBINED WITH VERSAILLES), he would have never come to power. BTW, Hitler was not just another street brawler in 1929. The Nazis already had 130,000 members at the time.

“And yes in 1900, the German Navy about the a same size as the US Navy”

Which is germane to the discussion, how? Germany had a long way to modernize their fleet to even approach the size of the Royal Navy.

Even their most ambitious plans left them at best with 60 percent of the total of the Royal Navy. Navy in size, that would be approximately the size of France.

Navy sufficient to defend the Baltic from the British, something that they were actually incapable of doing, as the British were capable of shipping into the Baltic despite the Germany navy.

That also doesn’t mention the Russian navy stationed at Petrograd.

So yeah, the British had the better quality and the more advanced ships, and were concerned about a power with roughly half of their tonnage, and no greater than that of the other powers?

I can understand why Britain would be concerned with the large build up and modernization, which is what spurred Britain to do the same. However, at no point of the process did the German navy come even close to superceding that of Britain. As the Germans had no attempt to even leave the Baltic to engage the British, I can only surmise that as large as the German fleet at the time, they were insufficient to pose a danger to the size of the British fleet.

Churchill himself, as secretary of the Navy draws the same conclusions.

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.