Skip to main content

A Practical Way to Get Started on the Origins of World War I

If you are interested in the centenary of the Great War but don't know where to get started, consider this brief article by Eric Margolis. Recall the old quote by the Latin poet, Horace, that "fleeing vice is the beginning of virtue." In studying the origins of the Great War, the first mistake you must avoid is the British bias, which is also the bias of Anglophiles in the power establishment of the American Northeast.

Many people see diplomats as empty talk, talk, talkers, as well as duplicitous scoundrels. But the diplomats at the end of the Napoleonic wars crafted a peace that lasted a hundred years in Europe -- not complete peace of course, but there were no general European-wide wars for a hundred years after their peace treaty.

But halfway through that remarkable century of progress, something new happened: Germany became a united country, and started industrializing and arming itself at a rate that soon threatened to make it the Big Cheese of Europe. The former Big Cheeses couldn't stand to see themselves become second-rate powers. It is not an easy transition. The Balance of Power in Europe simply failed to accommodate a rising Germany. 

The USA faces the same problem today. It must gracefully bow out of running the planet and let China take over meddling, bombing, invading, and occupying half of the countries on the planet. A lot of good it will do them. 

Comments

edlfrey said…
Your point about the diplomats of old and their dearth during the time of WWI is also a theme in "The West’s Reckless Rush Towards War with Russia" by Chris Martenson at Zero Hedge and by Pat Buchanan that he cites. He says this in the article:

"My greatest concern in seeing the this rush towards judgment before the facts are in -- or worse -- war, is that the people running the show in the White House and the US State Department are not cut from the same cloth as the old-school diplomats that preceded them.
After all, extremely dangerous conflicts transpired in the past (the Cuban Missile crisis, anyone?) and yet talks between sides were held and resolutions reached, preventing the more dire of outcomes from coming to pass.
In that spirit, I found this recent piece by Pat Buchanan (someone I've not always agreed with in the past), to be spot on: " Is Putin Worse Than Stalin?"
XXXXX said…
What you have posted here is a very suitable beginning to discussing the many forces and events which shaped WWI. I hope none of your readers are overly offended by your comment regarding Hitler because we are so used to villianizing him for everything instead of seeing how his rise to power could not have happened at all unless there were many people caught up in the psychology of the times who supported him.
I'm watching a production from the Teaching Company which I got from my library called "The Long 19th Century: European History from 1789-1917." The instructor is Professor Weiner from Lafayette College. Anyway during the above period of time, a huge factor in Europe was the Industrial Revolution which gave Britain a huge advantage over everyone else in Europe. It eventually spread to France, Germany, etc. but Russia remained far behind for a long period of time. Russia also is a hard land to survive in as most people were dirt poor peasant farmers throughout their long history. Russia has been a late comer in competing with the Europe who had so many advantages over them for so long.
It's anybody's guess how all factors weigh in to create history. Even the historians, those who have made this their lifelong study, disagree. It's so easy to pull out this fact or that fact, etc. and sway the argument. I dislike going there for that reason since I will never be that much of an expert on anything.
What I like about your interest in this is your willingness to be open and to re-evaluate what we have traditionally been taught. For to do this frequently results in an understanding of the other side and a lessoning of the hatred and separation we hold for those we traditionally view as our enemies.
You are right that the balance of power is always shifting and I don't think it is possible to stop leaders from vying and strategizing for the top position. Perhaps it is only when one is smart enough to realize the odds are against them at that time that leaders are willing to settle for sharing power, moving over a bit, as you are recommending the US do at this time.
Basic human nature is always the problem, always has been and always will be.
An interesting study in humility is the famous study by Stanley Milgram "Obedience to Authority." It is well worth looking at if anyone is unfamiliar.
We really dislike any sign of humility in our leaders. We see it as weakness. You use the term "gracefully bow out".......I am calling including those sentiments in the use of the word "humility". I do not mean it as "less than" something or someone else but rather as being willing to "step aside" in recognition of what is really every person wanting a decent life, no matter of nationality.
John V said…
Like most issues, it boils down to economics. The transition of power is more about reserve currency status and its implications for national wealth. The US is in the process of losing reserve currency status. Before us it was the UK, before them the Spanish, before them the Netherlands, before them the Potuguese, etc. Military instability always accompanies these transitions because the economic stakes are so high. Maybe we will avoid large scale war this time around, but the impact to the standard of living in the US as we lose our reserve currency status will be the real devastating wake-up call in this country. At that point, bowing out the world stage gracefully will be the least of our problems.
XXXXX said…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-rise-of-putinism/2014/07/31/2c9711d6-18e7-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html

Yes, I read that article by Buchanan. He did a good job reaching out to people across the political spectrum, in that article.
Terri Reed said…
Yes, the Industrial Revolution played a large part in the origins of WW I, creating unrest and dissatisfaction among the masses who moved from rural to urban lifestyles. Just wonder two generations from now, how or if the Social Network Revolution will play a part in world history?