So......that analysis I promised to write......well......I think what I was trying to explicate in my previous and probably emotion-laden post on the nature of total war in respect to discrete series of logical formulations of - what was I saying? Oh yeah, my confusion/inability to express the underlying tensions of my brain does not lie in the actions of the participants of WWII during the war - after all, the good student of history should be aware of the extent to which the darker side of human nature continues to emerge, cat-like, to pounce upon the seemingly infallible pillars of civilization...but I digress - rather, my focus is on the actions of the Allies in the immediate aftermath the war.
Liz and Mia have both examined the Nuremberg trials and come to the conclusion that the trials, though exhibiting a hypocrisy of the highest order among the Allied countries, were justified and necessary, especially if one takes into account the new, humanity-based international framework that resulted. I guess I have to agree that it was right for the trials to occur, but were they actually successful in the long run? The fact that the actions of the Allies during the war were not decried, let alone examined, for a while after the war gave those countries a pretty free hand in their international wheelings and dealings (that is, a hand free from the threat of prosecution by a human rights court):
USSR: Stalin! That bastard was around for 8! (EIGHT!) more years after the war ended;
USA: Vietnam and Gitmo, those symbols of American military superiority;
Britain and France: I don't know much about this, but there were definitely brutal tactics used in Kenya and Algeria, respectively.
The actions of these countries have weakened human rights courts and given local despots and warlords around the world the confidence to kill whomever they please. Does this mean the Nuremberg trials were a failure? Was WWII a failure? [The first question was serious, the second purely for hyperbolic purposes].
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
If You Can't Stand the Heat, Get Out of the Cold War
I enjoyed the Cold War, US-USSR antagonism, brink of nuclear destruction simulation today, and while it is not over yet (though the outcome was already decided when Glorious Leader Stalin decided to free us from the shackles of Leninism and lead us to global Soviet hegemony - go team USSR! and the Jamaican and Irish Socialist Republics!), I am currently of the mind to make a comment or two concerning it and the period of time it pertained to - the first decade and a half after WWII. To begin, what drove these countries to pursue their respective courses of action? In response to Jonathan's post about the Long Telegram, I do agree that the U.S. policymakers weren't really being idealistic, or at least expressing a positive form idealism. I don't know if this is actually a correct term, but maybe we could look at the U.S. as being negatively idealistic. Instead of trying to spread democracy or any other type of ideology, per se (not the correct usage), the policy of the U.S. was negate the spread and effects of another ideology. This is in some ways equally as dangerous as positive idealism because it leads to the same rigid thinking, lack of flexibility, and demonization of the enemy. Not that the Soviets' policy made much more sense (yeah! refuse those eggs!). The players on both sides of the conflict were pretty close-minded and usually unwilling to compromise, with the exception of the occasional thaw once every decade and a half. But I guess M.A.D. ended up working out for everyone. Yeah!
Sunday, March 29, 2009
It's All Just Horrible
The "Horrible Histories" series of books from England by Terry Deary is one of the major reasons I became interested in history (note: squeamish be warned, clicking the link above does present the clicker with some cartoon violence, so be wary before rolling your eyes over it). The books' attraction to the youth of my day was their focus on the more violent, and certainly less boring, parts of history (that and the various cartoons interspersed throughout the books' chapters). Yet, at the same time, the books never glorified war or took the blood and gore too lightly; in fact, they often had the opposite effect.
One example that struck me upon first reading it approximately a decade ago and that has stuck with me ever since is from "The Woeful Second World War," which concerned, of all things, WWII. In the particular story, Deary presents the reader with the picture of a night carnival, complete with smiling, happy families and children whose only care in the world is to be next on the ferris wheel (perhaps he was laying it on a bit thick, but it provides an excellent contrast to what would follow). Suddenly, a great number of planes fills the sky and begins dropping tens upon hundreds of bombs. There is fire, death, destruction, horror everywhere, and by the end most of the fair ground is gone, along with the people there. Throughout the entire story, Deary has led the reader to believe that this scene took place in England, that those were British chlidren, German bombs, but after it is done he reveals that this was not the case - that was Berlin, those were German children, RAF planes. Why the British, our allies, would do such a thing confused me, to say the least (I hadn't even learned about Dresden then) and certainly contributed to whatever quest for knowledge I am still on today.
I was reminded of this last summer when I was doing a summer program at Oxford (birthplace of the name-dropper). It so happened that I was reading "Slaughterhouse Five" by Kurt Vonnegut (in which the bombing of Dresden plays a prominent role) right as we were discussing the concept of 'just war' in my international relations class. As an exercise, the class split into groups to determine whether various wars throughout history could be considered 'just,' particularly from the standpoint of the victors. My group analyzed WWII, and we decided that, while the entry of the the various Allied countries into the war was justified (e.g. invasion of Poland and the rest of Europe; Pearl Harbor), much of the Allies' conduct could not be considered just (e.g. the firebombing of Dresden, Tokyo, and many other cities; the use of the atomic bomb).
So what I am I trying to say here? Honestly, this post isn't so much an analysis as a reflection. Of course, it's easy to defend the actions of the U.S. and Britain with the simple mention of the Holocaust, but almost every major player in WWII was complicit in some atrocity - it was just to varying degrees. Man, total war is a real...well, you know, the word that can also mean a canine of the female persuasion. Anywhile, I'll end this post with a quote from "The Fog of War," in which Robert McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War, discusses his role, and that of the U.S., in the bombing of Japan:
One example that struck me upon first reading it approximately a decade ago and that has stuck with me ever since is from "The Woeful Second World War," which concerned, of all things, WWII. In the particular story, Deary presents the reader with the picture of a night carnival, complete with smiling, happy families and children whose only care in the world is to be next on the ferris wheel (perhaps he was laying it on a bit thick, but it provides an excellent contrast to what would follow). Suddenly, a great number of planes fills the sky and begins dropping tens upon hundreds of bombs. There is fire, death, destruction, horror everywhere, and by the end most of the fair ground is gone, along with the people there. Throughout the entire story, Deary has led the reader to believe that this scene took place in England, that those were British chlidren, German bombs, but after it is done he reveals that this was not the case - that was Berlin, those were German children, RAF planes. Why the British, our allies, would do such a thing confused me, to say the least (I hadn't even learned about Dresden then) and certainly contributed to whatever quest for knowledge I am still on today.
I was reminded of this last summer when I was doing a summer program at Oxford (birthplace of the name-dropper). It so happened that I was reading "Slaughterhouse Five" by Kurt Vonnegut (in which the bombing of Dresden plays a prominent role) right as we were discussing the concept of 'just war' in my international relations class. As an exercise, the class split into groups to determine whether various wars throughout history could be considered 'just,' particularly from the standpoint of the victors. My group analyzed WWII, and we decided that, while the entry of the the various Allied countries into the war was justified (e.g. invasion of Poland and the rest of Europe; Pearl Harbor), much of the Allies' conduct could not be considered just (e.g. the firebombing of Dresden, Tokyo, and many other cities; the use of the atomic bomb).
So what I am I trying to say here? Honestly, this post isn't so much an analysis as a reflection. Of course, it's easy to defend the actions of the U.S. and Britain with the simple mention of the Holocaust, but almost every major player in WWII was complicit in some atrocity - it was just to varying degrees. Man, total war is a real...well, you know, the word that can also mean a canine of the female persuasion. Anywhile, I'll end this post with a quote from "The Fog of War," in which Robert McNamara, U.S. Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War, discusses his role, and that of the U.S., in the bombing of Japan:
[General Curtis] LeMay said if we lost the war that we would have all been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he's right. He... and I'd say I... were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side has lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317910/quotes)Perhaps a more cogent analysis of this subject in a later post - if I can wrap my head around all of this...
Thursday, March 26, 2009
In der Marine! Ja, Sie können die sieben Meere durchsegeln!
Now that Jonathan has, on this momentous occasion, revealed to the world our group's paper topic, I feel it is time to start some researching. First off, dibs on die kriegsmarine - sorry Sam, even if Das Boot is your favorite movie (is it? that would be an odd coincidence) you now have to research die heer (and what a heer it was). This first research post could be considered rather short, but I have only just begin to delve into the realm of the unknown that is the kriegsmarine. And so, here's a summary of Plan Z, Germany's uncompleted pre-war fleet-building program, and here's a slideshow of the Battle of the Atlantic (from the Times, hence all the pictures of British ships). May your bacchanalian desire for kriegsmarine-related information be sated for the time being.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Put on your Russian Glasses (Made of Russian Glass)
Here's a little more on Stalin and how he is viewed. This article from December talks about Stalin's popularity, either sustained or renewed, and I think it's interesting to see how Russians themselves look at him. Perhaps, with decades in between them and the purges of the 1930's, today's Russian see only the positive aspects of Stalin's rule: industrialization, defeating Hitler, making the USSR a world power. Like Putin's popularity in the past few years - people were willing to stand by his curtailing of civil liberties while their country was prosperous - maybe Russians are willing to turn a blind eye to Stalin's atrocities. The Soviet Union was never truly defeated, and there was never de-soviet-ification similar to what happened in Germany after World War Two. That's why many Russians consider him one of their greatest countrymen.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
What's Your Opinion on Mass Murderers?
Responding to Sam's post, which asked why Hitler has, for the most part, been considered worse than Stalin, I would say that it's not just because the U.S. had allied with the Soviets. Even after World War II and into the Cold War, the American propaganda films focused more on bashing Communism and the Reds in general than on the figure of Stalin, perhaps because Stalin was already dead by 1953. On the other hand, Hitler's image and persona were quite prevalant in American war propaganda, to the point that he was featured in children's cartoons.
Another reason most people's perceptions about the two dictators are often skewed would be the Holocaust - to be more precise, the Holocaust survivors. Enough people managed to survive the Nazi concentration camps and tell their stories that readings about the Holocaust are often required in elementary and middle schools, and there are a number of museums around the world making sure that we "never forget." Compare this to the coverage of Stalin's victims - there are no accounts of life in the gulags I'm aware of besides Solzhenitsyn's works because almost no one escaped - there was no liberation of Stalin's camps. The fact is that Stalin's atrocities aren't as present in the collective memory as Hitler's. It's 6 millions vs. ?
Another reason most people's perceptions about the two dictators are often skewed would be the Holocaust - to be more precise, the Holocaust survivors. Enough people managed to survive the Nazi concentration camps and tell their stories that readings about the Holocaust are often required in elementary and middle schools, and there are a number of museums around the world making sure that we "never forget." Compare this to the coverage of Stalin's victims - there are no accounts of life in the gulags I'm aware of besides Solzhenitsyn's works because almost no one escaped - there was no liberation of Stalin's camps. The fact is that Stalin's atrocities aren't as present in the collective memory as Hitler's. It's 6 millions vs. ?
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Fascism vs. Liberal Democracy: A Debate of Uberific Proportions
I will begin this post by declaring that I, in my official position as Judge Nate Charnas ("The People's Judge"), having presided over the case of Fascism vs. Liberal Democracy in connexion as to whether the government of the former style is viable and can meet the needs of the governed, do declare that Fascism has lost. May there be feastings of some type for the anti-fascists.
There, now that I've gotten that off my chest I can clearly and calmly offer an analysis and explanation of today's debate and of my shortly subsequent decision. The anti-fascists were pretty successful at arguing against the economic benefits of fascism, citing Italy's deficit under Mussolini, though I feel that the fascists could have provided some good counter-arguments by bringing up the re-militarization of Germany under Hitler. The anti-fascists also pointed out the negative aspects and affects of nationalism (rather strongly, I might add), but they could have gone farther in trying to refute the fascist's claims that nationalism and success go hand in hand, or at least chosen stronger examples than Switzerland and Qatar. The fascists could have argued longer and more clearly about the the need for a strong, central leader in times of crisis like the French Revolution or after World War I, or tried to show that the Weimar Republic was not such an exception to other liberal democracies. The most important point, which I don't think was discussed enough, concerned how the curtailment of civil rights met the needs of the governed. The fascists argued about the importance of the common or greater good over the needs of the individual, but this reflected a set of beliefs more than evidence or an argument. I realize it was hard to justify Hitler's actions against Jewish Germans, but some historical example of the benefits for the governed of curtailing rights (it didn't even have to be from Germany) would have definitely helped.
There, now that I've gotten that off my chest I can clearly and calmly offer an analysis and explanation of today's debate and of my shortly subsequent decision. The anti-fascists were pretty successful at arguing against the economic benefits of fascism, citing Italy's deficit under Mussolini, though I feel that the fascists could have provided some good counter-arguments by bringing up the re-militarization of Germany under Hitler. The anti-fascists also pointed out the negative aspects and affects of nationalism (rather strongly, I might add), but they could have gone farther in trying to refute the fascist's claims that nationalism and success go hand in hand, or at least chosen stronger examples than Switzerland and Qatar. The fascists could have argued longer and more clearly about the the need for a strong, central leader in times of crisis like the French Revolution or after World War I, or tried to show that the Weimar Republic was not such an exception to other liberal democracies. The most important point, which I don't think was discussed enough, concerned how the curtailment of civil rights met the needs of the governed. The fascists argued about the importance of the common or greater good over the needs of the individual, but this reflected a set of beliefs more than evidence or an argument. I realize it was hard to justify Hitler's actions against Jewish Germans, but some historical example of the benefits for the governed of curtailing rights (it didn't even have to be from Germany) would have definitely helped.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
To Gird a Word is Absurd, so I've Heard: A Treatise on Historical Absurdity
Perhaps, you, reader, in your recent perusals of my previous blog posts, have noticed an increasing tendency towards the absurd. Well, let me assure you that this was quite intentional and not, rather, the quasi-physical manifestations of the very breaking-down of my mind. No, the randomness you might have perceived to be present on this url of unrivaled magnificence was not the "rambling" of a "crazy" "person" - it all leads to a point! An absurd point! Well, actually, no - the absurdity was done for the sake of absurdity, myself being a fan of the word of the absurd. But, I figured, with such absurdity already wafting through the blogospheric atmosphere (the kids still call it that, right?) like a nonsensical phermone (or aphrodesiac - wait, no, that just sounds weird), I would write a post dealing with the absurd in a rather-more-than-cursory way. And so, I end this absurd introductory paragraph, in which I have used some form of the word "absurd" over 7, no 8 times (rather absurdly I might add - oh no! 9 times!), and thus begin the meat, the crux, the meaty crux of what I am trying to say...............absurdly...............(10 times!)...............
As I read what might have been the section of the MEH textbook assigned for tomorrow's class (being syllabus-less, I cannot be sure), I found myself chuckling, nay guffawing, at John Heartfield's "Have No Fear - He's a Vegetarian" on page 944. The picture itself, though literally/photographically crazy (...absurd...) is nonetheless quite true and, more to the point, incredibly chilling (it's meaning is explained in the textbook). Heartfield was a communist and dadaist (or at least sympathized with the movements), and, according to the online brochure for a Heartfield exhibition at the Getty Museum, he "unleashed his sharpest satire on Hitler's Führerkult (cult of the leader), the basis of German Fascism. These montages parody Hitler's most iconic poses, gestures, and symbols to create the impression that one need only to scratch the thin surface of Fascist propaganda to uncover its absurd [!!!] reality."
It seems to me Heartfield was one of the many Europeans who had lived through World War I, seen the rise and spread of fascism and Hitler's ascension to power, and thought, "How is Mussolini in power? Why are so many people listening to what Hitler says? Why are the rest not paying attention to him? This makes no sense. How could this possibly be happening? Did we spend four years fighting in World War One, at the cost of millions of lives, for nothing? This is absurd!" Of course, the dadaists had already acknowledged that the world was an absurd place during World War One, when Marcel Duchamp's forays into what-the-hell?-ness were at their strangest and strongest (see page 930 or any of Duchamp's works from that period). Hitler and everything he represented, not to mention the allies appeasement of him, just cemented these views.
Heartfield's picture also reminded me of Max Ernst's "Une Semaine de Bonté" or "A Week of Kindness," which I discovered randomly at Green Apple Books (a quality bookstore). A book full of collages, it is divided into 7 sections (for each day of the week) with some theme or common image running through all the collages of a certain section. And it really doesn't make any sense, at least to the conscious mind. It is instead meant to appeal to the reader's feelings and emotions, and there is definitely a "mood of catastrophe that pervades this collage 'novel'"that every interpretation attributes to the fact that Ernst was putting this together in Italy (remember, that's fascist Italy) and in 1933, just after Hitler had been appointed Chancellor of Germany. Yes, it's crazy, it's absurd - not just the book - Hitler, Europe, history - that's what's damned absurd - the world is absurd.
(17 times!)
As I read what might have been the section of the MEH textbook assigned for tomorrow's class (being syllabus-less, I cannot be sure), I found myself chuckling, nay guffawing, at John Heartfield's "Have No Fear - He's a Vegetarian" on page 944. The picture itself, though literally/photographically crazy (...absurd...) is nonetheless quite true and, more to the point, incredibly chilling (it's meaning is explained in the textbook). Heartfield was a communist and dadaist (or at least sympathized with the movements), and, according to the online brochure for a Heartfield exhibition at the Getty Museum, he "unleashed his sharpest satire on Hitler's Führerkult (cult of the leader), the basis of German Fascism. These montages parody Hitler's most iconic poses, gestures, and symbols to create the impression that one need only to scratch the thin surface of Fascist propaganda to uncover its absurd [!!!] reality."
It seems to me Heartfield was one of the many Europeans who had lived through World War I, seen the rise and spread of fascism and Hitler's ascension to power, and thought, "How is Mussolini in power? Why are so many people listening to what Hitler says? Why are the rest not paying attention to him? This makes no sense. How could this possibly be happening? Did we spend four years fighting in World War One, at the cost of millions of lives, for nothing? This is absurd!" Of course, the dadaists had already acknowledged that the world was an absurd place during World War One, when Marcel Duchamp's forays into what-the-hell?-ness were at their strangest and strongest (see page 930 or any of Duchamp's works from that period). Hitler and everything he represented, not to mention the allies appeasement of him, just cemented these views.
Heartfield's picture also reminded me of Max Ernst's "Une Semaine de Bonté" or "A Week of Kindness," which I discovered randomly at Green Apple Books (a quality bookstore). A book full of collages, it is divided into 7 sections (for each day of the week) with some theme or common image running through all the collages of a certain section. And it really doesn't make any sense, at least to the conscious mind. It is instead meant to appeal to the reader's feelings and emotions, and there is definitely a "mood of catastrophe that pervades this collage 'novel'"that every interpretation attributes to the fact that Ernst was putting this together in Italy (remember, that's fascist Italy) and in 1933, just after Hitler had been appointed Chancellor of Germany. Yes, it's crazy, it's absurd - not just the book - Hitler, Europe, history - that's what's damned absurd - the world is absurd.
(17 times!)
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The Technology of Death
I mostly agree with Sam's post about total war, but I don't think the fact that the conditions of World War One caused considerable mental-warping for the soldiers involved fully explains why the war was so atrocity-ridden. I believe (and this may be getting all philosophical and stuff) that soldiers in war were always mentally and emotionally capable of committing these atrocities and were limited only by the technological advancements (or lack thereof) of their time. Machine guns, poison gas, shells, even tanks and planes near the end of the war - all these things enabled soldiers to kill, wound, traumatize, and destroy on a scale previously unimaginable. On a lighter note, I enjoyed the link to the TV tropes page on World War One. Besides being quite funny, they also show the impact that World War One has had over the past 95 years. But I feel I have written perhaps a few too many posts on this subject, and so let this be the last World War One post on my blog.
Unless there's something else cool to write about.
In which case I will, once again, write about World War One.
And, if such a case should occur, I will acknowledge the fact that I claimed I would cease from World War One posts.
Cause you got to stay true to what you say.
Unless there's something else cool to write about.
In which case I will, once again, write about World War One.
And, if such a case should occur, I will acknowledge the fact that I claimed I would cease from World War One posts.
Cause you got to stay true to what you say.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
SOME People OBVIOUSLY Can't FATHOM My BRILLIANCE
To Mssrs. Jonathan and the hundreds of others who read my learned blog on a daily basis,
I shall have you know that you made an unforgivable mistake in your recent blog posting. What is this mention of "reds" and "whites," this talk of revolution-from-below and Lenin? Clearly you are hopelessly mired in the early 1920s, content to pick at the uncomplicated events of the Russian Civil War whilst sullying the good name of your peers. Well I say to that harrumph, good sir! I do believe it was plain for all to see that my erudite analysis of the Russian psyche concerned the period of time known as (and I quote myself, wonderfully) "the late 1920s" and "the 1930s." Yes, you may have stumbled upon an inkling of correctitude, namely that (and I quote you, unfortunately) "for the most part, people went with their own self interest," and certainly this was true for those caught up in the hellish maelstrom the aforementioned civil war, but...actually, this was also true for those pinned down under the terrible weight of Stalin's revolution-from-above. Perhaps I did not happen to fill my sentences with enough clarity, or rather I forgot to mention the very motivating factor of fear that Stalin so exuded, that fear of deporation, of famine, and of death. Now, most rational beings, acting out of their own-self interest, would take steps to ensure that they were not exposed to such things, even if these "steps" involved working for a totalitarianly murderous regime. But, such fear as this, coinciding with the purges of the 1930s, was not so everpresent when Stalin first took power and began instituting his policies. What about those people who implemented and carried out Stalin's plans in the beginning? Why did they act the way they did? What motivated them? I expect the answers to all the questions on the morrow, attached with twine to the leg of a mottled speckledove.
Your good sir,
Nate
I shall have you know that you made an unforgivable mistake in your recent blog posting. What is this mention of "reds" and "whites," this talk of revolution-from-below and Lenin? Clearly you are hopelessly mired in the early 1920s, content to pick at the uncomplicated events of the Russian Civil War whilst sullying the good name of your peers. Well I say to that harrumph, good sir! I do believe it was plain for all to see that my erudite analysis of the Russian psyche concerned the period of time known as (and I quote myself, wonderfully) "the late 1920s" and "the 1930s." Yes, you may have stumbled upon an inkling of correctitude, namely that (and I quote you, unfortunately) "for the most part, people went with their own self interest," and certainly this was true for those caught up in the hellish maelstrom the aforementioned civil war, but...actually, this was also true for those pinned down under the terrible weight of Stalin's revolution-from-above. Perhaps I did not happen to fill my sentences with enough clarity, or rather I forgot to mention the very motivating factor of fear that Stalin so exuded, that fear of deporation, of famine, and of death. Now, most rational beings, acting out of their own-self interest, would take steps to ensure that they were not exposed to such things, even if these "steps" involved working for a totalitarianly murderous regime. But, such fear as this, coinciding with the purges of the 1930s, was not so everpresent when Stalin first took power and began instituting his policies. What about those people who implemented and carried out Stalin's plans in the beginning? Why did they act the way they did? What motivated them? I expect the answers to all the questions on the morrow, attached with twine to the leg of a mottled speckledove.
Your good sir,
Nate
The Terror Justified Redux
Putting ourselves in the shoes (or boots) of the Bolsheviks and the leaders of the communist party of the USSR on Monday, almost everyone put the survival of the state and the communist ideology as a top priority and the guarantee and protection of civil liberties as unimportant or even dangerous to the Soviet cause. This was the mindset of those in charge of the Soviet Union in the late 1920s, and they were willing to go to any means to achieve their goals, even if this meant killing (take a deep breath) millions of their own countrymen. Was this justifed? Hell no! I think a better question to ask is whether the people who participated in such terrible state actions, such as carrying out the purges of the 1930s, believed these actions were justified, or whether they did these things only as way to increase their own power and eliminate enemies (real and imagined). The latter case is most certainly true for Stalin, that personification of revolutionary betrayal. But what about the party members in positions of less power who were obeying orders from the top? Did they think they were doing the right thing or were they acting out of self-interest? Yes, there are always people blinded by ideology enough to do anything or people willing to undertake grotesquely Machiavellian tactics for their own gain. But most people, like those in the Nazi regimes and other totalitarian governments, were probably just doing as they were told.
Weekly Summary Six
So...WWI. Kinda awkward. As Cas has put it, the beginning of the period where Europe "lost its marbles." Jonathan's post about the "ingrained conservatism of the military leaders of the time" and Declan's post about the war's surreality complement each other nicely and are two different ways of exploring the war's effect on the European psyche. Europe basically could not cope with something so strange, new, and horrible, thus hindering the attempts of both sides to achieve victory and permanently changing the face of European politics as old monarchies fell and new totalitarian regimes rose. A former teacher of mine described the war as a pyrrhic victory for the British because it ruined their economy and hastened the demise of their empire. World War One defeated not just the Germans and Austro-Hungarians, but all of Europe.
Versailles Treaty Excercise: An Excercise in the Versailles Treaty
I enjoyed the peace conference exercise we did on Friday. The inclusion of Germany and Japan would have made it more interesting, and probably much more complicated, but the situation and the goals of each country (or potential country) were still fairly accurate. The one aspect of the conference that wasn't covered was colonialism and imperialism. Although the territories involved fall outside of the boundaries of Europe, the existence of colonies or desire to establish colonies in those areas played their part in the relations between the countries. In Africa, Britain and France kept their colonial empires and split up the German colonies between themselves. There had already been tension between Britain and France (and Russia before the Revolution) over the fate of the Ottoman Empire during World War One, and once the war was over these problems became apparent during the peace conference, resulting in the division of the Middle East into British and French mandates and the disastrous consequences of such actions. In addition, the imperialist tendencies of the British and French undermined the peace process and made the League of Nations more than a bit hypocritical, contributing to its lack of power in the following decades. After World War One, imperialism was still a potent force.
David Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace" is an excellent book on the subject.
David Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace" is an excellent book on the subject.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Factors...factors...factors of World War One...
In "The Armaggeddon Waltz," an op-ed in the New York Times yesterday, Frederic Morton describes a financially strapped and politically volatile world of 1913 Vienna. He makes the point that this was a place where Stalin and Trotsky (separately) planned for a communist revolution, where Hitler attended art school, and the archduke Franz Ferdinand met with the Austro-Hungarian emperor, his uncle, in an attempt to convince him to cease the military activities in Albania that were only further provoking the already angry Serbians; the seeds of World War I, the Russian Revolution, and even World War II could be traced back to this city. I found this quite interesting (although not Morton's final analysis that America could somehow be similar). There were so many infinitesimally minuscule factors that shaped the course of history leading up to the first World War that I think the conclusion that the war was an inevitable occurrence is an enormous oversimplification. For instance, there had already been numerous instance of imperial sabre-rattling, even when the alliance that existed in WWI were already in place, such as during the Second Moroccan Crisis. With WWI, it was just that no country backed down. What would have happened if Franz Ferdinand had convinced his uncle to pursue a less belligerent policy in the Balkans. Maybe a conflict similar to WWI would have occurred at a later date, maybe it would have never occurred, but there is no certainty about either option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
