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 ...
The essay was solicited by the editorial page of a major US newspaper, and then rejected because it did not fit its prevailing narrative. ...
And now read my Tagline included with every post.
Not true.
The banksters that provided loans to both sides of the war won nicely.
Even Old New York was once New Amsterdam.
Fantastic. We are the world superpower. But you still haven’t answered the question. How has that benefited us?
Bookmark
That is profound!!!
Attributed to Plato by Santayana (IIRC) and quoted by General MacArthur. Yes. Profound.
You really think being the world superpower is worse than being some second world European country dependant on these US to keep the world from burning too much, so you can pay for everyone’s cough syrup? Or some third world tin-pot dictator’s country?
We set our own national strategic interests, we don’t have other countries doing it for us, or swapping out our leadership.
These US can’t be invaded militarily. Our bases are the lifeblood of many places where they’re located. Our humanitarian assistance after hurricanes and tsunamis has saved how many lives? Would you really want us depending on a Russian carrier to provide water and electricity to shore? If it could even make it across the Atlantic without breaking down?
Our economy runs the world. When we go up, so does most of the world. When we depress, the world follows.
Our leadership in innovation is second to none. If we weren’t a superpower, how many inventions that came out of the space race, or silicon Valley, or the steelworks would be around today?
I think the time has come to pull back, we have over 800 Military bases around the world, do we really need all of them. We need to withdraw from NATO and let the Europeans handle things in their area, if they fail, they fail.
“How about peaceful commerce.”
That’s what I don’t get about this insane war. Both Russia and Ukraine were doing relatively well. Their standard of living and freedoms had increased substantially. No one was seriously threatening Russia. So why the war?
I’ve watched several videos of Putin’s justification for the war. None of them have anything to do with the current state of affairs, only historical grievances as perceived by him of long ago and somehow wanting to fix those past injustices today.
Very similar to the demands for reparation today by the blacks and the war on and demonization of whites going on in this country. It’s trying to fix the problems of 100 years ago, even though those problems no longer exist.
“...Anyone aware of a tie-breaker?” [DuncanWaring, post 2]
“...The US should not be involved in European wars...Ukraine was once part of the Russian Empire...” [ClearCase_guy, post 19]
All analyses on this thread are at least partly deficient.
No mention is made of German unification, driven by Prussian expansionism. It frightened all other Euro powers & the smaller nations - far more than Italian unification ever did. Over and over, from 1848 right into 1914.
No mention is made of maritime considerations, international trade (closely tied to maritime considerations), nor the course of the war at sea. The land war was but a part of the total conflict.
For a more complete picture, read _Dreadnought_ and _Castles of Steel_ by the late Robert K Massie. Thoroughly documented in the most painstaking detail.
Germany bears more blame than anyone else: the government egged on the Austrians to attack Serbia, lying outright to other Euro diplomats about the concerns of high officials and their very movements in early summer 1914. Then the Germans tried to back away from their skulduggery at the last moment.
When Kaiser William got cold feet just before the start of the clash, members of his Generalstab refused to carry out his instructions to halt mobilization and attack; they simply threw up their hands and claimed no one could stop it all.
The western-attack phase of German plans was not necessary: at that moment, French/German tensions had reached their lowest ebb since the 1870s. By 1914, the French were not interested in regaining much of anything, nor in attacking anybody.
America declared war in response to Germany’s declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare, which had come within in weeks of collapsing Britain. There were a number of American fatalities - far more upsetting to the US public than any concerns about trade or international finance. Was this unrealistic? Possibly. But it was in accordance with US & Allied notions about civilized warfare prevailing at the time.
Modern isolationist notions are insupportable. The US was founded as a trading nation, not some idealistic agrarian republic (despite Thomas Jefferson’s daydreams). Trading nations cannot unilaterally stand aside, but expect the system to survive undisturbed in times of crisis. Notions about keeping clear of Euro conflicts were unrealistic then, and worse now.
Concerning the actual course of the war, no one has expressed it more succinctly than did Bruce D Callander. In an article that appeared in 2014, in Air Force Magazine, he pointed out that “almost nothing went as planned, or expected.”
Additionally, Germany did not know of a secret Russia-France defense pact which both acted upon.
Read the “Fateful Alliance” by George Kennan.
We are surrounded by two vast oceans that give us a natural geographic advantage. Because we’re in the new world, our continent and country was populated by risk takers and adventurers, giving us an additional advantage. We have huge natural resources. We have the ability to set our national strategy because of those factors and others, and would have had that ability regardless of whether or not we had gotten involved in World War I.
World War I had no good guys and no winners.
Here are the options.
you / them
Of those four possible outcomes, which one do you want?
There was a psychological study years ago that has been stripped from the internet. I forgot the details and can’t find it any more. But in the study options were given for those outcomes.
60% by my memory chose the lose/lose. They were so focused on you not getting any reward for the found wallet they chose that, even if it meant they got no reward. They chose destruction over the other options. I call them liberals.
I suppose most of us would choose the win/lose. Am I right?
Would anyone choose the lose/ win? Sadly, you can maybe put names to the option.
That last option........the win/win. That is Trump, that is the art of the deal. You win on the parts of the deal that are important to you and let the other party win on the issues important to them.
I like win/win people and will do business with them all day long. I try to be that guy but am not always successful. It depends on the situation and people involved. It takes much failure and experience to get to the mental state of win/win.
The WIN/WIN is the best option but not always possible.
More like: 116,516 deaths - the majority of which were attributable to the Spanish Flu.
In war, there are always casualties. By your logic, no war ever has a "winner."
[...] and setting a precedent for foreign entanglements that continues to drain our coffers to this day.
That's the price we pay for being the world's only Superpower.
Let’s assume the United States had never entered the war. The combatants would have eventually come to a stale mate due to their resources, both monetarily and men, having been drained dry. And with the more equitable settlement, as opposed to the Treaty of Versailles, perhaps there is no Hitler. Who knows?
Pure speculation. Go write a contrafactual history novel!
Regards,
Then by your logic Germany "rightly" should expect to be back in it's 1913 borders.
Fronch lost in 1870, a war they started, therefore they listened to Germany's peace terms and signed to accept terms.
Only Germany didn't start WWI....Russia mobilized against Germany before anyone declared war on anyone......mobilization is an act of war. Therefore, Russia started WWI!
AND the Brits are guilty of war crimes by putting munitions on passenger ships, like the Lusitania, Which, the US was complicit in.
it's illegal to transport arms using civilians for shields.
Here's a question for you, why does the Brit navy STILL protect the wreck of the Lusitania (a 100 years later)......could it be there is evidence there that could be embarrassing to the Brits & US?
Are you perhaps referring to the First Italo-Ethiopian War?! Because I don't see any real connection between it and WW I.
Regards,
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.