BroJoe, I thought of your post over the weekend, and while you make some good points, I have some disagreement. For a long time I’ve thought that the real men of Europe were all killed off in the Great War. The Brits died at the Somme, the French at Verdun, but the Germans took another generation and they died at Stalingrad.
I don’t think the percentage of population losses really tells the full story. Yes, the United States suffered a high percentage of population losses compared to the European powers in World War 1. But there were other differences, and most of them had to do with the vigor of the society, both before and after the war.
The American Civil War came at a time when the United States had just begun a huge expansion in terms of territorial development, industrial development and population growth, partly fueled by large immigration from Europe. That growth was the result of many factors which existed independent of the Civil War, and many historians believe the Civil War was merely one its features. However, despite the losses in the war, the United States, particularly the victorious northern part, exited the war stronger and more prosperous than it entered it. And that trend was going to continue for several more generations.
Europe entered the Great War as a prosperous, vibrant civilization, but left the first great struggle exhausted and disillusioned. It was no longer a vibrant, healthy civilization, but a sick and vulnerable one. The great nations lost their competitive edge. The main difference with the United States was in underlying conditions that were more or less independent of the war. While the United States was just beginning its rise, by 1914 Europe had already reached the zenith of its world power. It was something of a wasting asset; it could only decline relative to the rest of the world, and it was only a question of at what pace. The two wars that ripped the Continent apart didn’t cause that decline, it only accelerated it.
So a 2% loss in population in a country that has continuous 5% growth isn’t going to make much of an impact. A 2% loss in a country that isn’t growing can start a cycle of tailspin.
I never liked it. It always struck me as self-serving excuse-making BS.
But who exactly is the “self” being served? And which truths are the excuses intended to hide?
Well certainly one “self” is the new American hegimon — naturally, we eat that stuff up, uncritically, since it feeds our egos and sense of self importance.
But why so little resistance from Europeans themselves?
Well, part of the answer is easy — American help for Europe's allies came at the cost of powerful anti-imperial, anti-colonial ideology.
Sure, we pulled their chestnuts out of the fire, but at the price of severe restrictions on future chestnuts.
So Europeans adopted an attitude of disillusion and angst, while we Americans just kept right on doing what it is we do best — living our lives, building a prosperous economy.
But the real tell-tail is Germany, which certainly had as much right to “disillusionment” as anyone.
And yet within just a few years they were right back up on their feet pursuing their long-term national goals — this time with a near biblical vengeance.
Again, my point is, if great battles resulted in disillusionment or cultural death, then the US would have “died” at Gettysburg or Antietam.
Instead, what really matters is not so much the size of the battle as what exactly we say about it for years afterwards.
Really, we're talking about education and or propaganda.
Must stop for now...