My understanding is that WW1 happened because nobody thought Great Britain would bother getting involved, so one side thought they had the advantage.
What you are suggesting leads to the exact same out come with the US playing the exact same role as England did. We would be the uncertain component. As long as Russia knows we will defend our allies, they can’t move without risking MAD, but as soon as we make it unclear where we will stand, it will be WW1 as Russia tries to take advantage.
Janster’s point about WWI it seems focuses on the chain of events that extended from the assassination of the Arch Duke in Sarajevo. From that point, the way mobilization plans were implemented in those days ended up dragging everyone into a huge mess.That, and cavalier diplomacy from nations that by and large still thought war was a way of proving national mettle and which were chomping at the bit because of nationalism and competition on the world stage to do just that sort of proving. Germany gave Austria the infamous “blank check,” more or less, Austria delayed too long to chastise Serbia and then was inept when it did. The Germans made it clear that if the Russians mobilized to support Serbia they would mobilize to support Austria…but because of the rail systems, the German General Staff’s structure and mindset, and perhaps simple obstinacy, German mobilization plans also required mobilization against France. With a government too arrogant to see very far ahead, and too weak to tell the General Staff to stick it, German mobilization sort of precipitated a lot of what happened afterwards. And yes, one reason they didn’t care that much was that the UK hesitated to commit to the defense of France in advance and thus Berlin could fool itself into thinking the Brits would sit it out (though by 1914 that was pretty much a non-starter if the Germans had looked at all at the Franco-British relationship in the months leading up to the war).
In a sense, Janster has a point. With NATO including a host of countries with long-standing issues, internally and externally, that bear on Russian interests, and with less internal cohesion around common goals than in the Cold War, it’s conceivable that one of the NATO members on the periphery could end up in a fight with Moscow that would draw everyone else in. I’m not convinced Putin & Co. would actually tangle with a real NATO member; as noted elsewhere here, Russia for all of its bluster is ill-prepared to actually fight NATO for real. But as Janster says, dumb stuff happens, and has happened before.
I think NATO is relevant and is still necessary. I share the concern that some have about its expansion. Not because expansion per se is bad, but because I’m not sure enough effort is given to adequately discussing and shaping NATO policy and expectations, and because without really working out a new mission statement that doesn’t rely on the ready-made Cold War framing of the issues NATO runs the risk of meaning just what any member nation wants it to mean. But those are issues that can be worked out I think.
But in WW1 all the various nations went to war because they thought they could win, or at least come out of it with a more favourable position. Everyone basically wanted war. Everyone assumed it would be a relatively quick affair that would reshuffle the continental order. We seem to be very very far from a similar situation.
It’s absurd that you guys are arguing about fucking WWI with Janster, who lacks even a basic understanding of contemporary events, much less historical nuances from a hundred years ago.
WWI happened because everyone hated each other and wanted to fight. And at the same time they were all incredible idiots. The French wanted to fight mainly to get revenge on the Prussians for the last time around, the Russians wanted the Austrians to get wiped out by lets-you-and-him-fight tactics with France and Italy, the Germans were feeling as resentful as usual at having no colonial influence to speak of. Meanwhile the Brits were pompous and moronic, playing their stupid imperial games while trying to suppress German ambition. Despite being more opposed to Russia than anyone else. And don’t even get me started on the Italians, whose strategy seems to have been to compete to suffer the most casualties for the least good reason of anyone. And if only Victoria had been preserved as an undead steampunk god-empress none of it would have happened, because everyone was married to one of her daughters.
And the reason for arguing about WWI is now that it’s 100 years gone it’s kind of fun, despite the immensity and enormity of the whole thing, the stupidest war in human history.
I think the British might have stayed out of it, except for the German invasion of Belgium. Britain had guaranteed Belgium’s sovereignty, but the German Schlieffen Plan went right through Belgium.
If the German’s had changed the plan to avoid Belgium, Britain might have stayed out of the war. If I’m not confusing my historians, GJ Meyer’s in his “A World Undone: The Story of the Great War” argued that with WW1 levels of bureaucracy, changing the plan simply wasn’t doable in the given time frame. Germany stuck with their plan and so Britain declared war.
This could well be correct. That was their cited casus belli, and they did have some pacifists in parliament. But the British were naturally inclined against the Germans and for the French after recent events in Europe. They might have come up with some justification for war even if the Germans had respected Belgian borders.
Thanks Wombat, you put what I was trying to say into a more sensible post.
I worry and see too many people just don’t get it, WW 1 was a stupid stupid war and how can it be justified ever? Nato could easily end up in the same problem…and we’d have a holocaust on our hands, but maybe mankind needs to get wiped out over some shitty minor issue in Ossetia.
Way to go.
Wasn’t there someone here who posted a WW 1 diary thing on the forum a while ago, I found that a fascinating read.
We still talk about WWI because it’s relevant. People have not, I fear, become any smarter since 1914. Yes, the world is different, and the particular constellation of people, events, and attitudes that set the stage for the First World War will never happen again. but as a case study in bad decision making, 1914 is still unparalleled. Many of the key factors–arrogance, hubris, cherry-picked intelligence, assuming your enemy thinks the way you do, unjustified faith in technology—are still very much in play.
Also, WWI remains one of the most important cultural events in Western history. It’s crucial to the history of Modernism, but it’s also the wellspring for modern authoritarianism. Much of the loathing today for liberal democracy mimics that of the post-war period in Europe, where extremist movements seemed to have far more potential to actually accomplish something than did the seemingly played-out old ways that had brought about the slaughter of 1914-18. Modern nihilism may have its roots in Nietzsche, but it was nurtured and matured in the aftermath of WWI.
And sometimes both together, as in Futurism.
Well, I consider the people in this forum more well informed than most , and even here the concept felt alien for some, god help the rest of humanity then, they got no fucking clue
Some of us lived through the 70’s and 80’s. Some I daresay even through the 50’s and 60’s.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2017/09/25/north-korea-minister-says-can-shoot-down-bombers/
Neat!
This is fine.
Well, I guess all the people who told me that Pence would kill the gays slower with electro-shock therapy than Trump would with nuclear war, so I should support a quick impeachment toward a lesser evil might get proved right after all.
A good set books on the causes of WW1 is Sidney Day’s Origins of the First World War. It goes into detail about all the secret agreements nations had built up in the years leading up to the war.
We have thin-skinned blowhards on both sides of the nuclear escalation now. Thank you voters.
DPRK basically saying Trump’s tweeting is a declaration of war.
Remember how Hillary was going to get us in so many wars? Man. Good times.
They’ve said things like this before, it is typical of them goading someone else into action so they can legitimately look like they aren’t already the aggressors.
However, it remains to be seen how Trump will handle the goading of war declaration.