OT - Fiercer than a thousand dogs

[Von Paulus 8]

http://madamepickwickartblog.com/?p=7932

[Bullethead 12]

I dunno. IMHO, in the context of its time, WW1 is perfectly understandable. And it's equally understandable that those responsible for getting beaucoup guys killed for what in hindsight seems sheer stupidity (like Churchill and Gallipoli) would say something like they were caught up in the moment or, to use his words, "the world wanted to suffer". That's just trying to duck responsibility for what in hindsight seems onerous but at the time seemed perfectly natural.

 

WW1 started out business as usual, but it became just the next periodic destruction of civilization that happens every 500 years or so. We're still in the ensuing Dark Ages, when various barbarian tribes fight over the choice bits of carcass. This will continue for another century or so until the next version of civilization arises. And then it will crash in its turn. And there is no new thing under the sun.

[JimAttrill 24]

"It was a strange world that died that summer of 1914. For ninety-nine years there had been peace in Europe, apart from the Crimean War."

 

And so the Franco-Prussion war of 1870 was a barn dance? Strange that the author should have forgotten that one, which the French were trying to avenge in 1914.

 

It is true, though, that the men of Europe almost all wanted to have a war, certainly in 1914.

[Von Paulus 8]

"It was a strange world that died that summer of 1914. For ninety-nine years there had been peace in Europe, apart from the Crimean War."

 

And so the Franco-Prussion war of 1870 was a barn dance? Strange that the author should have forgotten that one, which the French were trying to avenge in 1914.

 

... and the Austro-Prussian war.

 

It is true, though, that the men of Europe almost all wanted to have a war, certainly in 1914.

I'm not so sure about that. The English were reluctant. Even the German somehow weren't so unanimous about the war... The French, Russians and Austro-Hungary, for different reasons, were the empires who desired more the war.

 

WW1 started out business as usual, but it became just the next periodic destruction of civilization that happens every 500 years or so. We're still in the ensuing Dark Ages, when various barbarian tribes fight over the choice bits of carcass. This will continue for another century or so until the next version of civilization arises. And then it will crash in its turn. And there is no new thing under the sun.

If we believe in the Clausewitz idea that "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means," than maybe one day we can break the cycle.

But if we think that the driving force of war is culture (John Keegan), than hardly we will break that cycle.

 

 

I posted the link for the quality of the paintings.

[Bullethead 12]

If we believe in the Clausewitz idea that "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means," than maybe one day we can break the cycle.

 

But if we think that the driving force of war is culture (John Keegan), than hardly we will break that cycle.

 

War seems to be humanity's natural state and "peace" is the name we give to the rare, anomalous intervals when our own particular tribes aren't involved in a war. But there has never, ever, in the history of the world, a time of planet-wide peace, and it's highly unlikely that there ever will be. People are just too mean. My own tribe has been at war (cold or hot, limited or all-out) my entire life, from the early 1960s to the present. Some of my fellow tribe members delude themselves into thinking there have been intervals of "peace" along the way, just as they delude themselves into thinking we were at "peace" between WW1 and WW2. As long as there's no conscription, they seem to label it as "peace" regardless of how many small battles are fought.

 

So IMHO, we're not better off than the so-called "noble savages". Archaeologists have shown that war was/is endemic for pre-state societies, and there's nothing in the historical record to suggest that things are otherwise for states.

 

As a result, I think Keegan had it backwards--war drives culture. During intense periods of warfare, culture becomes centered on the warrior elite. During times of low-intensity warfare, no matter how fleeting, culture branches out into other areas. I submit that every so-called "Golden Age" of whatever culture only occurred because of, and happened immediately after, a long, bloody period of intense, often genocidal warfare. These wars either extermintated all external threats or so cowed and decimated them that they were in no position to affect things for several generations. Hand in hand with such external wars, or in the alternative, there was also usually some serious internal ethnic or at least idealogical cleansing going on, either voluntary or not. In either case, you ended up with a culturally homogenous population unlikely to cause internal trouble, combined with a lack of external threats. Thus, a "Golden Age" built on the bones of all who disagreed with the direction the culture was taking.

 

In such a context, I'm sure Clauswitz got it right. And I really hope he did. Otherwise, war is even more horrible than it already is.

 

I posted the link for the quality of the paintings.

 

Sorry to have missed that. The paintings totally rocked, but this being the Information Age, I naturally jumped to the conclusion that the text was what you were pointing out.

[ConradB 0]

3 Star USMC General Smedley Butler said it best, "War is a Racket". It's a good read too.

[Von Paulus 8]

In such a context, I'm sure Clauswitz got it right. And I really hope he did. Otherwise, war is even more horrible than it already is.

IMO he didn't. But like you hoping that I'm wrong.

 

Have you ever read Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers (please forget the movie)?

[Von Paulus 8]

I commented to my wife the other day that it seems as if the United States simply can't stand not to be at war. Don't get me wrong, I'm a veteran and I love my country. I'd just like to see us set the example for peace, not war. If they don't f**k with you, leave 'em alone. If they do, take them, and only them, out.

That's comes with the privilege of being a SuperPower.

That was always quite usual here in Europe. I mean to be at the state of war.

But why the surprise, after all US and Europeans have a common heritage. Western civilization.

You tried to be different and created the Monroe doctrine amongst other things.

Honestly it couldn't last; if it wasn't T. Roosevelt then other American President would break it, or if you prefer amend it.

 

Edit: And yes I agree with Bullethead that the was no peace between WWI and WWII. And surely it didn't also ended in WWII. We continue to be in state of war, in a very subliminal way.

Edited January 13, 2010 by Von Paulus

[Bullethead 12]

But, WW1 has always seemed to be an exception to the idea that there must be SOME reason, however poor; four years of mindless slaughter that really didn't even change the balance of power in Europe. Some historians put it down to the Europe-wide mobilization system, which once triggered by one nation mobilizing cause all the rest to reciprocate out of fear of being caught flat-footed. But what is Germany had decided to just chill out? That's what I would have done.

 

WW1 didn't change the balance of power? Sir, it was the end of Western Civilization as it had existed for centuries before, and we have yet to reach an equiliibrium point since then. WW1 resulted in the complete and immediate dissolution of the Russian, Ottoman, Habsburg, and German Empires, along with the mortal wounding of the French and British Empires, which expired soon after. IOW, the entire established political structure of the Western World was swept away. Granted, the German Empire was new on the scene, but it had been around long enough by then to have gathered a little patina. The immediate result of WW1 was a complete power vacuum, which various opportunists have been trying to fill ever since.

 

As to why WW1 was fought, it was just the next European war, which back then happened at least once each generation. The underlying reasons were the same as always. The only difference was, the Industrial Revolution had made possible armies orders of magnitude larger than those of the past, and had also produced technology that made war orders of magnitude more deadly.

 

As to why WW1 continued so long, consider the situation on the Western Front on 1 Jan 1915. By then the Race to the Sea had run its course and set up the long-enduring stalemate. With hindsight focused only on the hideously costly, failed offensives of the coming years, you can ask, "why didn't they just call it quits there?" The answer is that the Germans, while failing in their main objective of crushing France at the get-go, had still achieved a position intolerable to France and Britain. The Germans occupied most of France's coal-producing regions, so effectively had the French economy by the short and curly hairs but for massive imports from Britain and Scandanavia. The Germans also occupied Belgium, which was completely intolerable to the Brits. Not that they cared so much about the Belgians per se, but because it had long been Brit policy that if they couldn't own Flanders, no continental power could, either, so it had to be a neutral buffer. Thus, while the Germans might have been willing to take what they'd gotten and be done, the Entente could not accept that as the new status quo, and as such were locked into trying to reverse the German gains no matter the cost.

 

I'm not as familiar with the Eastern Front, but as I understand things, it was like this.... The Austro-Hungarians had been pretty well hammered by the Russians and Serbs, so Germany had to prop them up or face being overwhelmed. Besides, given enough gain in the east, they'd still have something to show for the war even if they ended up having to give most of their western gains back in the peace process. And given the unstable nature of the Russian regime, perhaps they could knock Russia out and then concentrate their full might on the western front, which wasn't going to go away for the reasons discussed above.

 

I commented to my wife the other day that it seems as if the United States simply can't stand not to be at war. Don't get me wrong, I'm a veteran and I love my country. I'd just like to see us set the example for peace, not war. If they don't f**k with you, leave 'em alone. If they do, take them, and only them, out.

That's pretty much what we've been doing, IMHO. Or did the world already forget 9/11?

Edited January 13, 2010 by Bullethead

[Bullethead 12]

Then why was it, 20 years later, essentially the same set of countries (Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Russia, USA) fought WW2? The names changed, the forms of government changed in some cases, but the power balance remained the same.

 

If you say WW2 didn't start until 1 Sep 39, then you don't see all the post-WW1 changes. Letting Hitler reassemble and take over much of the old Habsburg possessions undid much of the power restructuring after WW1. And this was allowed to happen because the UK and France were such shadows of their former selves. Also don't forget that when WW2 started, Germany and Russia were on the same side, and Italy was with them this time around.

 

I also submit that it was much more than just changing names and governments. A great number of social institutions had either been swept away or modified out of all description, and mental attitudes and mindsets went with them. It was an entirely different world in 1930s than it had been in 1914. So while some of the prior names were still in use, that seems more as a result of occupying a place of that name on the map rather than being the same entities as before. To me, IOW, it seems like a new cast of characters, or at least very different actors playing traditional roles.

 

As for the British and French empires, they didn't lose any colonial possessions at the end of WW1.

 

They were reduced to the point of being unable to maintain them, however, without the willingness of the colonies to remain subservient. And that willingness was fading fast. The colonials weren't afraid of their masters any more and didn't want to get dragged into another European war they didn't think was their business. It was therefore just a matter of time before the empires fell apart. That's why I said these empires were mortally wounded.

[Dej 17]

Was not the Second World War effectively guaranteed in 1919? Surely there was only one way such humiliation of Germany could end? Disregarding the moral impositions, such as having to accept sole responsibility for the First World War, the annexation of German territory sometimes by nations with no greater claim on it than Germany herself was hard to bear, being effectively the subjugation of German-speaking peoples by foreign nations and few German colonies to flee to.

 

Britain and France, whilst losing little in the way of territory, especially after the Treaty, had lost moral authority in their colonies... the mother countries owed it to their colonies, big time. Australia and Canada in particular had pulled England's and possibly the Empire's arse out of the fire, and were disinclined to 'tug the forelock' without question any more.

 

There was indeed a vacuum too, if not a power-vacuum as BH says, then a willpower vacuum or a languidness that allowed Fascism to arise. Totalitarianism and Democracy will always eventually go to war... each finds the other too ideologically offensive. But Britain and France were too terrified of a repeat of four years of barbaric slaughter to effect an early forceful but moderated regime-change in Germany that might have prevented the Second World War (although that latter is speculation on my part). The other major power of the First World War, Russia, was of course by then in the grip of its own totalitarian and utterly selfish regime - leading to it becoming, after the second defeat of German attempts at lebensraum, the next spectre haunting Democracy... this time with the threat of total annihilation to add to the hysteria.

 

Why do wars happen? Because there are those who have and those who have not, whatever the scale of the thing in question, and one side or other seeks to effect a reversal. As BH points out - it's humanity's natural state.

 

Bring on the alien invasion, I say. Give Humanity a cause! Although, having said what I've said about totalitarianism, Terra in Heinlein's Starship Troopers is within kicking distance of being a neo-Fascist superpower... which regrettably is likely the only ideology with which it can beat the Bugs. Bit of an odd cove, Heinlein.

[Bullethead 12]

Bring on the alien invasion, I say. Give Humanity a cause! Although, having said what I've said about totalitarianism, Terra in Heinlein's Starship Troopers is within kicking distance of being a neo-Fascist superpower... which regrettably is likely the only ideology with which it can beat the Bugs

 

It's been a long time since I read the book, but IIRC the only people who could vote or hold public office in that particular one of Heinlein's many hypothetical worlds were veterans. Not even current service members, just dischargees and retirees. IOW, you had to pay your dues in blood, sweat, and tears to have a say in how things were run, and that was completely voluntary because there was no conscription, but military service was open to all. Furthermore, IIRC there were constitutional protections that made all laws apply to everybody, veteran or not. Thus, those who didn't want to fight got all the benefits of the status quo, but couldn't change the status quo.

 

I think this is a pretty admirable system, an improvement on fairly successful systems used throughout history in many cultures. I'm of the opinion that universal sufferage is a BAD IDEA, for a host of reasons, and Heinlein's system of limiting the franchise seems better than most.

 

Bit of an odd cove, Heinlein.

 

And a randy ol' bugger, too.

[Bullethead 12]

I love to argue history and since you seem to be the only one here who wants to argue, I hope we can agree to disagree. At the risk of sounding Marxist, the change of names really didn't matter. They were still the same "political units" with the same populations, industrial capacities, resources (plus 20 years of progress, of course) and geopolitical outlooks. WW2 was just the second round of WW1. The death of the old dynasties meant tremendous changes in culture, but I just don't agree that this changed the military dynamic.

 

Yeah, I hope we never convince each other . So, to keep things in a state of conflict, let me say this....

 

I don't agree with the "same political units" thing. For instance, WW1's version of Germany was only a generation or 2 old, and a rather sudden and major change on what had always gone on before. Some of its parts weren't entirely happy with the situation, being joined largely by force or its threat. Remove that and perhaps they'd have gone their own way. In this way, the 1919 situation (however flawed elsewhere) might not have been far off. Likewise, the British Empire at least. It sure wasn't as united as it had been before.

 

And don't forget the change in population. Much of the next generation had been blown to bits, many of its survivors were badly crippled up, and pretty much all of them had very different attitudes than they'd had before the war. IOW, they had a different set of priorities, different expectations of and demands on their governments, etc. This cannot but have produced fairly substantial policy changes.

[Dej 17]

It's been a long time since I read the book, but IIRC the only people who could vote or hold public office in that particular one of Heinlein's many hypothetical worlds were veterans. Not even current service members, just dischargees and retirees. IOW, you had to pay your dues in blood, sweat, and tears to have a say in how things were run, and that was completely voluntary because there was no conscription, but military service was open to all. Furthermore, IIRC there were constitutional protections that made all laws apply to everybody, veteran or not. Thus, those who didn't want to fight got all the benefits of the status quo, but couldn't change the status quo.

 

I think this is a pretty admirable system, an improvement on fairly successful systems used throughout history in many cultures. I'm of the opinion that universal sufferage is a BAD IDEA, for a host of reasons, and Heinlein's system of limiting the franchise seems better than most.

 

I don't disagree at all. It's simplistic, though, I would humbly offer, to ignore the fact that, by virtue of having served a veteran's view of the world is not necessarily always going to be aligned with the good of those who haven't. I used the term Fascism in it's debased modern sense. The original fasces, an axe in a bundle of firewood was a symbol that implied that you must serve the state in order to have a say in the state and that I'd wouldn't argue with. TBH, it's a long time since I read it too, but the although the History & Moral Philosophy teacher's (was his name Dubois?) lectures are sound moral reading, they paint a picture, IIRC, of an almost totalitarian society, which, by my personal definition is heading for it's own demise... once the Bugs have ceased to be a rallying point - lots of parallels there, if you agree with that interpretation.

[Bullethead 12]

I don't disagree at all. It's simplistic, though, I would humbly offer, to ignore the fact that, by virtue of having served a veteran's view of the world is not necessarily always going to be aligned with the good of those who haven't.

 

That's where I would disagree. Despite what liberals like to say, the military hates war more than they do, because soldiers know best what horrors it entails. Thus, those who've seen war would like to avoid it more than those who've never served at all. The real difference is in facing facts. Those in the service know that despite their best efforts, wars are inevitable. At best, a strong deterrent can limit the number and frequency of wars. Also, they know that the greatest horror of war (at least since the early 1800s) is losing, so once one starts, hit with all you've got and don't stop until the other guy taps out. OTOH, the pacifists can't shake the delusion that wars can be avoided, and in pursuit of that are willing to compromise everything, including inviting more wars due to being weak, and giving up on wars to avoid short-term bloodshed regardless of the long-term consequences. People with these delusions are a positive threat to the longevity of their tribe and as such should not be allowed any say in government.

 

I used the term Fascism in it's debased modern sense. The original fasces, an axe in a bundle of firewood was a symbol that implied that you must serve the state in order to have a say in the state and that I'd wouldn't argue with. TBH, it's a long time since I read it too, but the although the History & Moral Philosophy teacher's (was his name Dubois?) lectures are sound moral reading, they paint a picture, IIRC, of an almost totalitarian society, which, by my personal definition is heading for it's own demise... once the Bugs have ceased to be a rallying point - lots of parallels there, if you agree with that interpretation.

 

No matter how things are arranged, or how many people get killed in the process, there will always be at least 2 power-hungry bastards left. The greatest problem of humanity is that we breed a disappointingly high number of people who want nothing more than power over others. "There can be only one!" And so Caesar replaces the Senate, and then various would-be Caesars fight for supremacy, until the external threats reappear and eventually sweep all before them.

[JimAttrill 24]

You've got a good point about the British colonial empire. It took the heavy shipping loses in WW2 to finally bring home to them that their empire (especially India) was more a burden than a benefit, since they couldn't support it. The French, though? They still hadn't learned (Indochina).

 

And the Dutch hadn't learned either in Java (now Indonesia). They, like the French, went back to territories that had been taken by the Japanese (went back with the help of the British in both cases). Not a good idea for them because they both ended up fighting the guerillas who had had a lot of practice against the Japanese.

 

The British were better off as some of their colonies that had been Japanese were happy to have them back. eg. Hong Kong and Singapore. Others were given quick independence whether taken by the Japanese or not i.e Burma, Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and India. Some stayed as part of the British Empire for quite a while, the last to go being Hong Kong. The ties are still strong in these countries, whereas the French influence in Vietnam and the Dutch influence in Indonesia is non-existent today.

[Von Paulus 8]

Even have read it a long time ago, lately I've been remembering, for different reasons, Starship Troopers a lot.

Agreeing or not agreeing with Heilen's ideas, his book brings to discussion really important issues. Are we in permanent state of war? What kind of society serves our wellcare best? Are we corrupt by nature? etc.

 

What's that I see? A moderator coming to shut this thread down?

Can't people discuss publicly this matters anymore? Is this political incorrect?

This has been, so far, a mature and civilized discussion.

[Von Paulus 8]

I apologize if my poor attempt at levity was misunderstood.

It's me who apologize to have misunderstood you.

[Dej 17]

Good call VP, the thread has gone OT and I apologise for my part in that. The parallel is though, that many British soldiers (NOT commanders) saw the aftermath of the cataclysm of WW1 as an opportunity to finish the change in British Society that the Industrial Revolution had begun... to finally throw off the last vestiges of the feudal system and emerge into a new dawn of equality of respect... because upper, middle and lower class had suffered together in the trenches (not to the same degree but together nonetheless). A society governed by veterans (or at least guided), a la Heinlein, was their dream. It didn't happen. Yes, there was a definite shift, but nothing that honoured the magnitude of loss.

 

I doubt the analysis of the social impact of WW1 is yet finished. I fear we today can never find the mindset to understand adjusting to the sheer horror of what had happened. And that without anyone's hand, in hindsight, being properly 'on the tiller'. It was the war to end all wars, in a sense. For the concept of war as essentially tribal and pragmatically limited was forever gone.

 

Ironically, I think, one of the unfortunate and unnecessary exacerbators of WW1, i.e. mobilisation as a counter to threatened mobilisation was validated in its absence by the collapse of Europe in the face of the German onslaught of 1939/40. 'Damned if we do... damned if we don't' - the legacy of two world wars.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Dej

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Give men a noble cause to fight for and they will commit unspeakable horrors in their attempt to win it.

 

Von Paulus, those are some very powerful pictures Sir.

 

.

[Bullethead 12]

Give men a noble cause to fight for and they will commit unspeakable horrors in their attempt to win it.

 

I believe Woody Allen said that if Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed came back and saw all that has been committed in their names, they would never stop vomiting.

 

I'm not so sure, myself; I think the historical evidence makes them all pretty mean. Still, in today's context, it's a useful illustration of your point.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Bullethead