In the center of almost all French villages, there is a monument to the dead of World War I, Morts Pour La France. Usually it is simple, a fighting man, or a column, and a list of the people from the town who died in that pointless struggle. The picture above is from the tiny medieval hill town of Chateauneuf-en-Auxois. There is a list of seven dead, Henri Bouchet, Celestin Tetard, Paul Lenne, Charles Garnier, Antoine Vigot, Charles Ruffin, and Claude Guerette.
Some of these memorials are heroic, but the Chateauneuf statue shows us something more realistic: a young man, face not fully formed, going to die, carrying a flag, and decorated for Feté National by some martial spirit.
WWI was a horrifying disaster. Millions and millions of people died, and nothing was settled. The generals were incompetent, and were themselves responsible for many of the deaths. I have seen the killing fields at Passchendaele. There is no high ground, and the open fields are now rich loam. In the rain, the soldiers going over the top couldn’t move. They were easy targets for the machine guns of the other side. If they fell, they drowned in the muck.
No one can offer a sensible explanation for the war. This site suggests that there were national, economic and colonial rivalries, and adds militarism and a crazy quilt of alliances. The elites wanted a fight, and they roused the citizenry into war. That is all that can be said.
What is certain is that Henri Bouchet didn’t want to die. He wanted to live in his home town, marry his sweetheart, raise a bunch of French kids, and die surrounded by family in his own house. Instead, he was trampled to death in a field somewhere. Antoine Vigot didn’t care about alliances, and Charles Ruffin didn’t have any interest in French Colonies in Africa or the Caribbean. The only French people who cared about those things were the political and economic elites. It was they who brought on the war. It was they who persuaded the lesser people of Chateauneuf and all those other little towns to fight their war for them and their interests.
Everyone knows that, I hear you say. And it’s true: we know it, but we don’t talk about it, certainly before the war starts. Maybe later, when it turns out badly, or in the aftermath of the funerals and the parades, someone quietly mentions it. Mostly, though, after the killing, the survivors go home, and everyone agrees that ugly as it was, it was necessary, and they do it again the next time the elites demand it. It is hard to think of a time when it didn’t happen just like that.
Fortunately, the Father of History recorded one such incident 2,500 years ago. A reading from Histories of Herodotus, Book IV, beginning at verse 11 (my paragraphing).
11. There is however also another story, which is as follows, and to this I am most inclined myself. It is to the effect that the nomad Scythians dwelling in Asia, being hard pressed in war by the Massagetai, left their abode and crossing the river Araxes came towards the Kimmerian land (for the land which now is occupied by the Scythians is said to have been in former times the land of the Kimmerians);
and the Kimmerians, when the Scythians were coming against them, took counsel together, seeing that a great host was coming to fight against them; and it proved that their opinions were divided, both opinions being vehemently maintained, but the better being that of their kings: for the opinion of the people was that it was necessary to depart and that they ought not to run the risk of fighting against so many, 14 but that of the kings was to fight for their land with those who came against them: and as neither the people were willing by means to agree to the counsel of the kings nor the kings to that of the people, the people planned to depart without fighting and to deliver up the land to the invaders,
while the kings resolved to die and to be laid in their own land, and not to flee with the mass of the people, considering the many goods of fortune which they had enjoyed, and the many evils which it might be supposed would come upon them, if they fled from their native land.
Having resolved upon this, they parted into two bodies, and making their numbers equal they fought with one another: and when these had all been killed by one another’s hands, then the people of the Kimmerians buried them by the bank of the river Tyras (where their burial-place is still to be seen), and having buried them, then they made their way out from the land, and the Scythians when they came upon it found the land deserted of its inhabitants.
I don’t think we need a homily discussing the point of that story, now do we?




62 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
I’ve heard it said and read that there were so many bodies that the soldiers had to dig through them to enlarge the trenches.
Obviously, the kings did what they were intended to do…die for their lands. Not ours tho. I’d like to see Lloyd Blankfein over there in Afghanistan…or Obama…any of ‘em but the soldiers they’ve kidnapped.
“And Halliburon came upon he land and coveted it and so seduced their King George to take it because they said it was his duty and his honor to do so.”
What a beautiful and poignant piece of writing. I have since childhood had a deep interest in WWI. This being because my favorite great aunt had served in France as a surgical nurse in a field hospital. She taught me many things and spoke, to me even as a child of the insanity of war. She was also the first to introduce the notion that all the fighting men are human beings and equally deserving of the succor of medical attention regardless of uniform.
This was in the midst of the romantic jingoism of WWII. Sometimes we get lucky in who we are related to..
“And Ahmad Chalabi, working on behalf of the majority-Shia Iranians, who wanted to turn Iraq from a secularist Sunni-run majority Shia state which had warred with Iran and served as a check on its power, into a non-secular Shia-run Iran-friendly ally, convinced the Likudniks and neocons in Israel and the US that a neocon-led, Likud-approved toppling of Saddam would somehow make the other Muslim-majority nations in that part of the world feel warm fuzzy feelings towards Israel.”
I loved the tv show MASH for it’s profound anti-war nature. It was so good at showing the folly of war and the destructiveness.
I
Wonderful tale of the Kimmerians.
IIRC, the last soldier of WWI died within the past decade.
Brilliant.
Absolutely brilliant.
(Does that make the enemy of my enemy my… duped idiot? /s)
For those who aren’t familiar with it. There is a great movie about WW1 Paths of Glory. Came out in the 50s and stars Kirk Douglas
War is such a waste – of everything. If only the people who decide to make war would have to fight it. If women were in charge of everything, would we have as many wars?
I hate to be the contrarian amongst this bunch, but despite there being a grain of truth in what you said, WWI like WWII was a justifiable war.
Contrast, if you will, the conquest that the Germans envisioned if they had won, versus the much milder conditions the Allies imposed upon Germany. The Germans planned vast annexations and control of not only Russian/Eastern European soil (as evidenced by Brest-Litovsk) , but also of Belgium and Northern and Eastern France in the West.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
By contrast, the Treaty of Versailles after the Allies’ victory only took from Germany territory that wasn’t German. You can and should condemn about the destructive economic reparations imposed upon Germany, and that the Allies did not let a then-*democratic* Germany merge with Austria (which they later let Hitler get away with). Also, the guarantees to French security were inadequate, as was the fact that America went isolationist again after the war.
The biggest mistake made during WWI was not fighting it to a conclusion–of allowing the Germans to sue for an armistice instead of fighting until unconditional surrender, as we did later in WWII. Because of this, German right-wingers like Hitler and others during the 1920s promoted the delusion that Germany didn’t really lose the war, but had been “stabbed in the back” when on the very verge of victory by left-wingers/socialist/Jews etc. Of course, army leaders like Ludendorff (who had told the Kaiser that the army was collapsing and that he must sue for peace) later denied that fact in order to divert the blame for the defeat from the army to the new Weimar Republic. This, and the fact that the peace left in place all the anti-democratic conservative elements in the army, judiciary, and civil service, proved to be poisonous for the new Republic.
That is one of the reasons why we did not make the same mistake twice, and insisted that in WWII we fight until Germany unconditionally surrendered. With American, British, and Soviet tanks rumbling through their hometown streets, no rightwing politician could then rewrite history and say “We really didn’t lose” when it was obvious to all that *they really did lose*. Moreover, it allowed the Allies to remake and de-Nazify the German government and armed forces, throwing out the conservative elements and replacing them with people faithful to the new democratic government. It’s hard to argue with the results–a Europe which has enjoyed an almost unprecedented peace, and France and Germany being allies, not enemies.
StewartM
Interesting to evoke WWI. Leaders of limited intelligence, supremely confident about their view of the world because whatever had worked in the past most surely work now, completely and murderously clueless about the forces they were unleashing and whom they were unleashing them on. Very much like our own times.
However I would note that in WWI many of the elite, or at least their sons, went to fight.
No war is justified.
I agree that it did a wonderful job in illustrating the folly of war. Unfortunately it also highlighted, without even being aware of doing so, the contempt that so many officers hold for enlisted persons. The most well treated enlisted people on that show, (Radar and Klinger), were both portrayed as stupid hicks. I loved that show before I joined the Navy but I can’t watch it now because of that.
As for masaccio’s point, I think Black Sabbath said it very well.
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/
There is an extraordinary 8 hour documentary entitled “The Great War.” I’ve watched it at least twice. The remarkable narration is by a woman. I’m pretty sure there is a statement by 1 historian that half of all those killed in the war have no known grave.
There was a strategy for fighting in Northern France and Flanders:
“We have more men than the Germans. If we kill an equal number on each side, we will win.”
I asked my Father, once about WW I. “Was Douglas Haig on of the Great Generals of WW I?” He tough for a while and answered “Yes, I suppose he killed as many as anyone else.” We never discussed the “great” again, ever.
WW I was such a bloodbath, and stained memories so much, and that Chamberlain’s efforts in Munich, Petain’s efforts in Vichy France, and France’s refusal to field their army against Germany in the Sudetenland were rational in the face of such slaughter.
The average life expectancy of the subaltern (Junior Officer) on the Western Front was 14 days. The RFC (Royal Flying Corps) was not issued with parachutes, because the Generals believed the pilots would use then too soon, jump out and not fight.
Everyone fought. All classes. The ruling class really dies, they were the officers (subalterns). There was a surplus of spinsters, with no prospects whatsoever of getting married in the aftermath. Hence the joke in my generation about spinster aunts, which we all had.
Every Village in the UK, every one, and every UK church has a memorial to the dead from WW I and added to for WW II.
When at school, and the school day was started with a church service every day, we had poppy (armistice day, Nov 11th) day, in remembrance of the dead. Everyone wore a paper replica of a poppy.
Every person with whom I was at school had family members dead in WW I and WW II. All of them.
Those wars, are the foundation of the EU. Not enough time has passed for anyone in Europe in forget why the ECSC, then the Common Market and then the EU were established.
Europe has experienced a rare 65 years of peace since the end of WW II.
And the US country glorifies war, and calls its soldiers Warriors? That’s just obscene.
I recommend the 5-volume diary of the 2nd WW by Francis Neilson. It is most edifying.
I don’t know where you get your history, but you are wrong.
The rise of Hitler was cause by the fall of the Wiemar Republic. The Wiemar Republic fall because of hyperinflation caused by the French Demand for reparations in the treaty of Versailles.
The Germans in the ’30s believed Hitler rescued them from the double hit of the fall of the Wiemar Republic and the Great Depression. The evil came later.
Please read Bertrand Russel’s autobiography. He believed in about 1908 the formation of the triple alliance was an invitation for a war against the double alliance. Without the triple alliance there would have been no WW I, no Russian Revolution, and No Hitler’s war.
The UK’s strategy after the Napoleonic wars was no more entangling European alliances. The triple alliance was a break from the strategy,
Just as we are manipulated today, the leaders of that time exercised their “wisdom” and set up Europe for WW 1.
AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen masaccio and the firepup Freedom Fighters:
“Some people won’t die for the political and economic elite.”
Up until today and the eternal corporate wars for social anarcy, I would agree with that statement…but today EVERYone is destined to suffer and ultimately die from these wars for the triumph of imperial capital. Even China is not safe from the collapse of nuclear armed corporate fascism and if the entire continent of Africa is reduced to an anarchic cluster of failed states, the rest of the world will be not far behind.
War has always been pointless, unjustifiable, and immoral but today we are faced with the extinction of life on the planet and unless we all fight we will all die…”not with a bang but a whimper.”
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION…WHEN IS A CHOICE A CHOICE ANYWAY?
Remember My Boy Jack I think PBS did it not too long ago.
Great song about this…
Search Youtube for “Willie McBride”…
Citizen Synoia:
“And the US country glofies war, and calls its soldiers warriors? That’s just obscene.”
Yes the US glorifies war and calls it’s soldiers warriors but the real obscenity is to imagine that those from the birthplace of imperial, total war are somehow above the obscenity of western history.
Lot of purported dependent conditions in there, and not many of them logically or empirically well supported.
Regardless, this misses the point completely. You reference “the Germans” when the point of the post is to note, that when we’re discussing the machinations of war, what you really should be saying is “the German elites.”
“All Quiet on the Western Front” won the Oscar for Best Picture of 1930. (It’s a talkie.) Lew Ayres, born 1908, stars as a German soldier. This is a 1st rate movie. Ayres’ soft voice and portrayal of disillusionment are very effective. Ayers was a conscientious objector during WWII. Ayres starred in several Dr. Kildare movies. After WWII, Jane Wyman supposedly left Ronald Reagan for Ayres.
What is it good for?
The very fine Book
“Birdsong” by Sebastion Faulks,
is written about world war one, with amongst other things, very well written, frightening, depressing, horrifying descriptions of trench warfare.
remember
Muhammad Ali:
“I got nothing against no Viet Cong. No Vietnamese ever called me a n****r.
[Edited by Moderator. Not even when used as part of a quote from Muhammed Ali]
This is a fundamental fact of the world we live in. It reminds me of the Pink Floyd song “Us and Them”. It also reminds me of a movie title “What if they had a war and nobody came?” Or something like that. Very seldom do very wealthy people or their children fight or die in wars. Very often there are some wealthy people who make enormous profits from the war industry. As an example, try and imagine how much money a person like Dick Cheney has made from the last two or three wars we have engaged in. He is so heavily invested in the war machine that his being vice president while we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan seems like a conflict of interests. He made several tons of money while many families lost their sons,daughters,husbands and fathers fighting for what?? Does anybody ever wonder why there was a very private meeting at the white house between the Bush administration and the heads of various oil companies just a short time before we invaded Iraq?? They were probably planning how they would carve up the oil wells after we took over the country and installed a friendly government. This type of policies and government is the very essence of what is known as a “PLUTOCRACY”. Government for the interests of the rich and powerful. I say that if Bush and Hussein had some issues between them then they could have gone out into an open field and settled it like real men while the world watched. Bush had it in his head that Saddam was going to try and have his father assasinated. So he was looking for any reason to invade. As evidenced by the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq when we took over. Plus the connections between Bush’s grand father Prescott, the Nazis, the grand Mufti of persia and Saddam’s crooked path to power add a very interesting dimension to the whole scenario. All that saber rattling that Saddam was doing, in my oppinion, was really geared to intimidate Iran. Their long time enemies. Not us. We knew that if push came to shove we would easily clean their clocks. Also, the notion that al quaieda was in Iraq was just ridiculous. Does anyone really believe that a tyrant like Saddam would allow a group like that to just hang out in his country?? A person who regularly had his own generals or anyone else executed on any kind of suspicion?? This war was perpetrated for the sake of the ones who would profit from it.
And many of those Warriors are sitting somewhere in Nebraska or Nevada and, essentially, playing a video game as they fly UAVs around Afganistan, Pakistan, and places the government has decided you don’t need to know.
Man what a thoughtful and heart rendering post Masaccio . . .
Great points, great piece of writing . . .
Incredibly moving.
*chair/clapping/wipeseyesrepeatedly*
You are buying into a narrative that is false. The allies did NOT win the war as contrasted to the positing that you do of Germany winning the war.
The reality is that the war was a stalemate. Then the momentum started to move towards the allies. Support for the war in Germany fell apart and both sides agreed to an armistice. This happened while Germany still was occupying parts of France.
But with the end of the war the economy in Germany collapsed and the government fell. Even though Germany didn’t really lose the war it lost the peace. Wilson wanted a peace treaty that would treat Germany with respect, but instead the allies were able to force a treaty that was harsh on Germany and forced Germany to take the blame for the war.
Who knows how the allies would have treated Germany if it had actually been conquered like in WWII? As it was the Germany Empire, the Austrio-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empires were carved up, France did annex parts of Germany, and the colonies of Germany were divvied up among the allies.
I’ve seen the monuments in small English towns too. In France, there wasn’t much to say about WWII, but you see some additions and occasional reminders of the Resistance. In some towns, the monuments name the Jews who were deported and murdered.
No, the German army was also falling apart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
When Bulgaria signed a separate armistice on 29 September, the Allies gained control of Serbia and Greece. Ludendorff, having been under great stress for months, suffered something similar to a breakdown. It was evident that Germany could no longer mount a successful defence.[117][118]
Meanwhile, news of Germany’s impending military defeat spread throughout the German armed forces. The threat of mutiny was rife. Admiral Reinhard Scheer and Ludendorff decided to launch a last attempt to restore the “valour” of the German Navy. Knowing the government of Prince Maximilian of Baden would veto any such action, Ludendorff decided not to inform him. Nonetheless, word of the impending assault reached sailors at Kiel. Many rebelled and were arrested, refusing to be part of a naval offensive which they believed to be suicidal. Ludendorff took the blame—the Kaiser dismissed him on 26 October. The collapse of the Balkans meant that Germany was about to lose its main supplies of oil and food. The reserves had been used up, but U.S. troops kept arriving at the rate of 10,000 per day.
Germany’s position in November 1918 was not unlike her position in July 1944, after the destruction of Army Group Center by the Soviets and the successful Anglo-American landing in Normandy. With these, and with the US AAF having control over Germany’s skies, her position was as objectively lost as in a chess game between grandmasters with one side down a rook. (One of the justifiable denunciations of Hitler is that he continued the war despite this fact, condemning millions more to their deaths). Let me remind you that in July 1944 there were no Allied troops on German soil anymore than there were in November 1918, but that does not keep us from concluding that Germany’s cause was lost in both cases.
StewartM
Why debate WWI, or talk about extreme options like abandoning our lands, when the current problem is nothing like those faced by the French in 1914 or the Kimmerians of old? There is no enemy massed on our borders; we are fighting endless wars of choice. Our young men are not dying by the millions, either. Instead, they are killing hundreds of thousands in what can best be termed morally dubious circumstances.
Reasonable people can disagree on the facts, but my narrative is shared by more than a few. In fact, FDR shared it to an extent–which is one of the reasons he proposed unconditional surrender in WWII. In fact, FDR and Eisenhower were very cognizant of the earlier history and use of Hitler’s “stab in the back” argument, as is evidenced by the demand that the German military sign the surrender, something that they escaped doing in WWI (and hence, the blame).
True ’nuff, but that does not deny those German elites were designing in both wars to impose upon Europe and the larger world an outcome more cruel (and in WWII, murderous) than did the corresponding elites in the Allied countries. Nor does it deny that in all of countries involved, the vast majority of the population supported both wars.
StewartM
Dalton Trumbo’s “Johnny Got His Gun” poignently expresses the cost of war. Europeans have seen the effects of war played out on their soil. A majority of the U.S. public sees war as a glorious and noble endeavor. A culture of war.
Can’t fan this one enough!
.
*Hitler* caused the fall of the Weimar Republic. Or better said, he ended it in 1933 with the Enabling Act. (Though you can argue that the Bruning government’s use of Article 48 in the Weimar Constitution to bypass the Reichstag might have been the end of Weimar, or at least the beginning of the end).
No. The hyperinflation of the early 1920s was only in part due to reparations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic. And it had ended long before Hitler’s started his march to power (in 1930).
Please read Bertrand Russel’s autobiography. He believed in about 1908 the formation of the triple alliance was an invitation for a war against the double alliance. Without the triple alliance there would have been no WW I, no Russian Revolution, and No Hitler’s war.
I in turn would refer you to just about any more modern historian. I have a number of books on the topic on my shelf, such as Lawrence Lafore’s The Long Fuse.
But I ask you–why is Russell (and you) blaming the Triple Entente? The Triple Entente was a reaction to Germany’s double (ne Triple) Alliance, which in turn was an outgrowth of Bismarck’s policy. The problem is that Germany achieved unification by not only defeating France, but by humiliating France, imposing reparations on France, and annexing French territory. This left Bismarck a continuing problem of managing an alliance with Austria and Russia and Italy directed at diplomatically isolating France. Bismarck kept his “system” in place during his tenure, but it required more luck and skill than his successors had to keep in place.
So a more realistic appraisal is: No Triple Alliance, no Triple Entente. And no annexation of French territory and no reparations on France, no need for a Triple Alliance.
Britain’s policy has traditionally been “No single European continental power should be strong enough to threaten Britain”. When Britain has perceived that one was, Britain did become willingly entangled in Continental alliances.
After 1890, the British became alarmed by Germany’s aggressive foreign policy and Germany’s building a navy that was directed at confronting the British. Germany seemed intent on becoming a threat to Britain just as Spain and France had been earlier, which was why Britain was willing to entertain alliances with her old enemy France and with Russia. Again: No Triple Alliance, no need for a Triple Entente.
I see WWI and WWII as two Acts in the same drama. Germany (or the German elites if you want to say) decided to make a bid for continental supremacy and to become a possible world empire, and to impose an authoritarian rule with it. After the defeat in WWI, many Germans concluded that defeat only came because they played too nicely the first time around and weren’t ruthless enough. I don’t see many ways WWI could have been avoided save by major political change within Germany that had brought the more democratic and peaceful elements of German society into power. But for sure, we had an opportunity to do so after WWI, to make certain that democratic rule could survive and flourish in Germany, but flubbed the chance. Not demanding an unconditional surrender as we did in WWII was part of said flubbing.
StewartM
WWII? The US Civil War?
I don’t like it any more than you or anyone else, but given the sad history of the world, and the fact that most governments do represent their elites, I don’t see an alternative at times. The only “out” lies in more political democratization, which in turn can only be realized with more economic democratization. The two must go hand-in-hand.
StewartM
Why are we fighting endless wars of choice? Do Americans think of themselves as warmongers?
“Path of Glory” includes that quote from Samuel Johnson, that what amounts to false “patriotism” is “the last refuge of a scoundrel.”
The Patriot Act falls into the scoundrel enablement category, to my mind, usurping the Bill of Rights and the Constitution generally.
I think it’s notable too. And that France and Germany and Britain, old enemies, are nominal allies. I have a book about Verdun when a French officer marvels at the battleground, and the carnage of 1916, then reflects how he is going to a conference in a few days for military discussion with France’s *German* allies.
Where we differ, perhaps, is that I think that unconditional surrender in WWII had a large part to play with that peace. There were always democratic elements in Germany (and Japan, for that matter) and a native progressive element, but it was unfortunately true that in both places the authoritarians and anti-democrats were too strong, and too strongly entrenched in important political and economic positions. A big problem with Weimar was that these remained entrenched, holdovers from the old order, which the new Republic could not rid itself of, These helped conspire to bring down the Republic.
The importance of unconditional surrender as a practical matter meant that the Allies could provide the necessary civil service, judicial, and police services while the new democratic governments got on their feet and rebuilt their own anew. Weimar needed a similar “denazification” policy after WWI but couldn’t get it because we signed that armistice and went home. And also, as I said, German rightwingers (not just Hitler) were able to spread the myth that Germany had not really been defeated in WWI but had been stabbed in the back.
StewartM
All true. Our warmongering is more indefensible for that reason.
One of the things that strikes me is how Cap Weinberger’s military–you know, the hideously expensive one, with all that high-priced, high-tech weaponry–is a mismatch for its stated purpose of fighting the Soviets in a large-scale conventional war. Some observers have noted that if such a war had broken out in Europe in the 1980s, the combination of battle losses and equipment wear-and-tear would have meant that the high-tech weaponry of both sides would have been unsustainable for a protracted conflict. We would have exhausted our high-tech stuff as would have the Soviets, and the result would have been us pulling our our M-48 tanks from the 1950s out of storage while they did likewise with their T-55s. Things being easily mass-producible and of reasonable cost would be a must for such a war.
Then why did Cap Weinberger build such a military? I am suspicious at this point, for I think it was NOT to fight the Soviets. Rather, it was to “Show the Flag” in any innumerable Third World scenarios–so that US politicos could have their desired military interventions, short-term exhibitions of “shock and awe” capable of overwhelming any conventional resistance offered by poorer states armed with cast-off Soviet weaponry, without those nasty body bags that so grieve American mothers and enrage public opinion at home. They still wanted the ability to still have their Vietnams, and they see as their own mistake in that conflict as having a draft and there being too-many body bags.
StewartM
That’s an interesting idea: We don’t have an obsolete Cold War force, we have exactly the chosen force to fight illegal wars of choice against low tech adversaries. The post-Vietnam plan all along.
I think it’s more about what makes Lockheed Martin and Boeing et al richer. Excessively complex weapons systems = $$$. Did you notice how the Canadians have now been suckered into the F-35 program? Lots of jobs.
Yep, it sure looks like it. Invade a state where the conventional forces at best they have T-55s and T-62s and other cast-off Soviet equipment dating from the 1950s and 60s, and in a short conflict our high-tech forces have a huge advantage and you “win” with few body bags, a lot of patriotic chest-thumping, and few complaints. In a protracted war, a different story emerges.
The neocons seemed to forget this in Iraq, however, when they made their comparisons with democracy-building in post-WWII Germany and Japan. We were able to accomplish the latter because we had a lower-tech, conscripted, mass military–lots of boots on the ground, the opposite of what our high-tech gives us. One of the complaints about our occupation of Iraq was that it had too few troops for the job–but hell, how large of a force can you afford to equip with million-dollar hardware?
Yes, with the additional caveat that Cheney et al saw as one of our mistakes is that we didn’t crack down on dissent hard enough during Vietnam, and allowed the press too much leeway to report what was really happening in the war. That too the Bush II administration sought to “correct”.
One of the more disturbing trends with American values is our preoccupation with saving “our troops”. We are at the point where 5 US combat deaths are news and a tragedy to be mourned, whereas 100,000 or more Iraqi civilian deaths are not.
To show you the extent of the de-evolution of our morality (and I know the actual practice of it during our history contains violations) during Lee’s invasion of Pennsylvania in 1863 some of the locals took pot shots our his invading forces. Lee’s response was merely to disarm them–Lee’s attitude was, that although he admired his soldiers to no end and thought them the best in the world, was that soldiering was an occupation that people (to an extent) signed up for, and that getting killed or maimed was an occupational hazard of that profession. For civilians, however, another standard applied: babies, children, old people, women, don’t sign up for war, and every reasonable cost must be taken to ensure that you don’t make them casualties, even if it means imposing some additional risk on your own soldiers. Even if they are “enemy” civilians.
In WWII, this was among the reasons we waged a daylight precision bombing campaign–putting our own airmen at increased risk to lessen the number of deaths of enemy civilians. (Though in truth, there were other technical and military reasons, and sadly later in the war against both Germany and Japan our bombing became more indiscriminate. And largely unnecessarily so).
I think that’s always part of the equation. But yes, the continuing wartime state is very profitable. In fact, it’s about the only growing manufacturing base we have left.
(Did anyone not notice that during the GM/Chrysler rescue deal, how no one seemed to notice that the automotive industry is also potentially a critical military industry? The US in WWII supplied the world with trucks and jeeps and tanks from its automotive industry. Is that job going to be “outsourced” to Toyota and Nissan in the future?)
StewartM
WWI was a tradegy led by J.P. Morgan’s loan to the British of 1 billion dollars. He could not allow the Germans to win. The war became a blood bath of such awesome horror of 18th century tactics against 19th century weapons. Few alive today could stand to view such horror. All in the name of money and power. Nothing has changed. We are still killing in the name of power and money. How can we remove the blood from our hands? Murderers all.
Boy you said a mouthful there.
I fear, however that it’s gotten so divided in this country at least, that we will be fighting each other and doing the masters work for them.
Believe it or not,the very best treatise I have read on the millenniums of war was written by Joesph Campbell in his 4 book series “the Masks of God”. It’s so full of the wars fought for certain beliefs that it is absolutely stunning history.
I’ve always wondered if the world would be better off without heroes.
Look how the wheel went round there: as part of the first Chrysler bailout the company had to divest its defense assets. Chrysler had for years been working on small gas turbines — trying to make them work as automotive powerplants. This led to Chrysler being well-equipped to work on the project that gave the US its ultimate Cold War MBT: the Abrams, which is powered by a rather large turbine.
Today, many see small turbines as a good source of power for generating electricity in cars that follow the concept of the Chevy Volt. EVs with onboard generators. Turbines are lightweight for a given power output and more efficient overall than other engine types at optimal RPM. Chrysler made great strides in the 50s and 60s building ever cheaper, simpler, lighter turbines. But they could never fully overcome inherent acceleration lag or low rpm gas guzzling issues. But a turbine, run at an optimum steady speed, used to charge batteries in an EV…Hmmmm.
Only now, of course, you can only find Chrysler turbines in museums. Tomorrow’s lighweight, cheap turbines will likely come from China.
All of which, of course, has nothing to do with war per se. What I like about the Chrysler example is how they developed the technology for legitimate civilian use first and foremost. But of course it found application in tanks.
Further back, there was the Chrysler armory in WWII, which built Sherman tanks. There you had a Rube Goldberg use of automotive technology for wartime needs: combining 5 Plymouth straight six car engines to make enough power for the Shermans that were sent to Britain (other Shermans got the outstanding Ford all-aluminum V8, two 6-71 Detroit Diesels or a radial aircraft engine).
Problem with appliying these examples to today’s military is that today we can’t really mass produce things like stealth fighters. Not so much crossover with automotive technology.
Does this pass muster?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZCS5I80X-8&feature=related
When I was bicycling in France near Verdun there were signs along the rural routes departementales in seven or eight languages warning people not to leave the roadway because of unexploded ordnance.
Sadly, it only takes a generation or two for a people to forget the horrors of war. Note the resurgence of militarism and national chauvinism throughout Central Europe. The kings seem always able to find plenty of willing, even eager, cannon fodder.
Sadly, I think the answer is yes. Just look at the women leaders of the UK and British Empire. No shortage of war.
More than anything, the economic system what drives us to war.
You should read Margaret MacMillian’s Paris 1919.
The first thing that one realizes is that all the big European powers of that era had rotten leadership. They were all looking for economic gain, France and England most certainly included.
And the leadership was pretty rotten back here in America. Wallstreet bankers convinced Woodrow Wilson to enter the war because they had lent a great deal of money to England. And at that point in time, France and England were losing the war. Woodrow Wilson sent our boys to die as debt collectors for JP Morgan.
And that debt collection turned into unpayable war reparations placed on Germany. That unpayable debt along with the land/economic losses of Germany kept that nation a basket case. Then after a decade of being unsatisfied with the level of debt collection, the international bankers and industrialists put a real fascist in charge of Germany… some one who’d pay the bills and make the trains run on time.
These wars are all about public sacrifice for privatized economic gain. A good number of City of London and Wallstreet bankers should have been standing trial at Nuremberg at the end of WWII.
Victoria had rotten genes.
I don’t think I am blind to that. I just think you should look on what the Germans planned to do to everyone else if they had won, which was even worse, and far worse. After all, the victory of the Allies did lead to the spread of democracy across Central and Eastern Europe, and self-determination, something that had not been allowed previously.
I agree that reparations upon Germany was a bad idea–which was the reason we didn’t try anything similar after WWII. But I differ with you on the origins of fascism–Hitler and Mussolini weren’t “put into power” in order to pay the debt of the banksters. They were helped into power by Italian and German conservatives, who, in the end, when given the choice of (as they saw it) democracy and “socialism” vs dictatorship with private profit, chose the latter. They chose the latter even though a party like the SPD wasn’t any more “socialist” than the AFL-CIO as a matter of fact.
StewartM
Eastern and Central Europe didn’t fair so well as a result of the 1st world war(which helped create WWII). In fact things got much worse for them. What did they get? a few years of peace, a depression, german and soviet troops turning thier countries into battlezones and then finally… soviet occupation.
And possibly the biggest losers were in the middle east. They got the English-French Skyes Picot agreement and the Balfour Declaration which set the region on a path toward endless conflicts that exist to this very day.
As for what would have happened if Germany had won… who knows. I happen to think that neither side should have “won”. Woodrow Wilson should have used his influence to push both sides into a peace treaty rather than sending our boys over there and giving the French and English a free ticket to utterly destroy the Germans. By 1917 the United States was in a strong position to push both sides into peace negotiations.
Nothing about WWI was “justified”. And that certainly includes Woodrow Wilson’s entering the United States into the war. Wilson was running a freak show and the US public knew it. The winning slogan(by a huge landslide) in the next election was “a return to normalcy”.
Mussolini was another matter entirely, I didn’t bring him into this. But one recent tid bit that has recently surfaced with regard to Mussolini:
BBC: Mussolini worked for MI5 agents
As for German fascism, bankers and war reparations. Look into the Bank for International Settlement(BIS), created in 1930 for war reparations. Look at Germany’s Central Banker Hjalmar Schacht, his open support for Hitler and his strong personal relationship with the other major central bankers of that era. And look at the nazi’s who were put on the board of directors for BIS: Walter Funk(Nuremberg convict), Emil Puhl(Nuremberg convict), Walter Schmitz(IB Farben director), Baron von Schroeder( the Gestapo’s banker). By the end of the war, FDR’s people wanted BIS to be shutdown because it was believed that the BIS had helped the Nazi’s loot Europe. But FDR died, and the British convinced Truman not to shut it down. Why were the British so keen on preventing the shutdown of BIS?
Now when did the Nazi’s political rise pickup steam? 1930, the Nazi’s went from being the smallest party to being the 2nd largest party. The same year that BIS was created for war reparations. Hjalmer Schacht’s support for Hitler grew over this period to the point where in 1932 he was sending petitions to President Hindenberg for Hitler to be made Chancellor.
And of course, Grand Pappy Bush(Prescott Bush) makes an appearance in this story.
UK Guardian: How Bush’s Grandfather Helped Hitler’s Rise to Power
It’s not that the German Industrialists didn’t support Hitler’s rise, they did. But the folks that were bankrolling everything were in the City of London and on Wallstreet. And that brings us to the question of why they bankrolled Hitler. At the end of the day, the City of London wanted thier war reparations so they could pay off Wallstreet for all the WWI loans and stabilize the British banking system.
That’s a heap of contingencies there. The immediate result of WWI was autonomy for Poland, Czechslovakia, and Yugoslavia. As for the map of Europe as a whole, Versailles possibly created the best fit of ethnicity to political border Europe had ever seen. And more than a few of the new states were democracies–Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Austria.
As for the depression, fascism, WWII, and Soviet occupation–I don’t consider these preordained by WWI.
We saw the draconian peace of Brest-Litovsk. A similar draconian peace, with the annexation of Belgium and Northern and Eastern France, was also planned.
http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/german-world-war-i-aims-%E2%80%93-the-%E2%80%98september-programme%E2%80%99/
Although couched in defensive terminology, Germany’s war aims were expansionistic. Territorial annexations, economic domination and military control would provide, Bethmann Hollweg promised, ‘security for the German Reich in west and east for all imaginable time’. As such, Germany’s war aims were an expression of the social-Darwinist philosophy of imperialistic competition which had underpinned pre-war arms races and colonial rivalries. Weltpolitik may have failed in peacetime, but war presented an opportunity to achieve Germany’s global ambitions.
In Europe Germany wished to impose her hegemony, through a combination of territorial expansion and economic control. In the east Russian territory in Poland and the Baltic would be annexed. Subsequently, in a concession to national self-determination, it was proposed that dependent satellite states should be set up in Poland and the Ukraine at Russia’s expense. In the west Luxembourg and important economic regions of France and Belgium – the Longwy-Briey iron-ore field and the Belgian Channel ports, Antwerp, Zeebrugge and Ostend – would be incorporated within the German empire to boost Germany’s economic capacity and secure her against future British and French hostility. France, Belgium and the Netherlands would be incorporated in a German-dominated economic union – Mitteleuropa – which would stretch from the Atlantic coast in the west to Poland in the east, and from Scandinavia in the north to Turkey in the south. Africa would become a German-dominated continent. French, Belgian and Portuguese colonies in central and southern Africa would be incorporated into a central Africa economic region – Mittelafrika – which would supply German industry with raw materials. Control of the Atlantic and Red Sea coasts would secure German command of key international routes, a check on British power. With Germany’s economic interests assured, Britain’s economic and commercial hegemony could be effectively challenged.
Then you would be hard-pressed to say the same about WWII, because German war aims (save for the elimination of the Jews) were not too far removed. As Fritz Fischer has shown, there is a striking continuity in Germany’s aims between both World Wars.
One last thing:
The German government, sans military defeat, would not have accepted any compromise peace. The German military government (essentially, Ludendorff and Hindenburg) feared that nothing less than total victory would mean 1) eventual submission to political and economic reforms demanded by the SPD, such as the end of the three-class voting system in Prussia which ensured the political dominance of the Junkers, and 2) any compromise peace under which the Germans could not impose massive reparations upon the defeated Allies would have require higher taxation. The Germans government was counting on plundering Europe.
Since an “utterly destroyed” Germany a bit more than a mere 30 years later had conquered territory from the Atlantic to the Urals, from Norway to Africa, it does not seem that the Allies at Versailles imposed a terribly draconian peace. Again, certainly nothing like the German government had in mind in imposing.
StewartM
I don’t see how one can accept these new nations as a result of WWI but not accept the remainder of the aftermath. Fochs himself called the treaty of Versailles a 20 year armistic. And sure enough, about 20 years later Europe was once again burnt to the ground.
And what about the middle east? How have they fared as a result of WWI? I’d say it’s been a disaster for them.
By 1917, American entry in into the war was defeat for the Germans and they knew it. As it was, Germany did accept an armistic based on Wilson’s 14 points before they were militarily conquered.
By 1917, without America’s help, the British and French were slowly going to lose. With America’s help, Germany was bound to lose. Wilson had the power, he chose to support the British Empire rather than be a peace maker.
The whole lot of rotten royals in Europe needed the boot for creating WWI. That includes the British royals who were no better than the rest.
I consider a decent into fascism as “utterly destroying” a nation.
Yes, the Nazi’s were barbaric… a barbarism largely created by the Treaty of Versailles with it’s unpayable war reparations and the subsequent bankrolling of Hitler by Wallstreet and City of London bankers.
Mass unemployment, hyperinflation and a large drop in living standards, that’s what the Wiemar Germans were forced to live with. All it did was produce extremists.
But Hitler’s takeover wasn’t an inevitable consequence of Versailles. In fact, it had more to do with the refusal of the Allies to fight for a complete victory and unconditional surrender. If we had done the same in WWI as we did later in WWII, the latter war would have been avoided. The current peace in Western Europe–almost unprecedented, in fact–is evidence for that.
Weimar stabilized from 1923-1929, relative prosperity returned, and extremism was muted. Yes, Germany was hard-hit by the global economic crises of 1929 which might have been exacerbated by Germany’s reparations but was not created by it (in fact, reparations were suspended in 1931 and outright cancelled in 1932). It was the latter economic crises, and not Versailles per se, that aided Hitler’s rise to power. The Nazis were only a relatively insignificant party before the elections of 1930.
StewartM
But the response of Ludendorff et. al to the US entry into WWI was NOT to ask for an armistice or to put out peace feelers. Rather, it was to transfer forces from the Eastern theater to France to deal a knockout blow to the Allies before the Americans arrived. Nothing less than total and complete victory would suffice for Germany’s leadership, for the reasons I stated in a previous post.
In fact some historians think that the Germans could have very well settled for a partial victory in 1916, perhaps keeping some of her Eastern conquests on the condition of returning to the status quo in the West. But even *that* option wasn’t deemed good enough for Germany’s leadership.
There is simply no evidence that the Germans were interested in any armistice or peace less than conquest before their armies started to fall apart.
StewartM
Fochs was prescient, but for the reasons I’m stating, rather than yours. With the peace leaving Germany with a significant part of its government still in the hands of conservative elements who still dreamed of a return to authoritarianism and military conquest, there was always this possibility. That is why Weimar needed our presence to “deconstruct” the German judiciary, civil service, and military, to kick out these elements and to reconstruct the government with those committed to the Republic. Heck, when Hitler’s Beer Hall putsch failed in 1923, he was given only a short prison term because the judge (a fellow right-winger) felt sympathetic to his cause!
What unconditional surrender in WWII accomplished was two things: one, it prevented any future Hitlers from arguing that Germany hadn’t really been defeated, but “stabbed in the back” by _insert _domestic _villian _here. It forced the German military and political elites to own up to the diaster, they were the ones who had to sign the surrender documents and then (for many) face trials. All the public could witness the defeat and who bore responsibility as painful, indisputable fact. By contrast, Versailles allowed Hitler and similar right-wing German politicians (not just Hitler) to peddle a message as completely divorced from reality as that of our current US right wing, who pretends that Reagan and Bush were deficit hawks–and moreover like ours today, to get away with it.
Two, the new democratic Germany could rely on the Allies to provide essential government services while its internal house was cleaned through the denazification program. Versailles resulted in only a 20 year breathing space between wars because it addressed neither need.
In fact–who knows?—if we had accepted an armistice in 1944 if Hitler had been assassinated in July and we had repeated Versailles all over again with an incomplete victory, then we might have had a third go-round another 20 or 30 years later, despite the horror up to that point. If our peace in 1944 had left the same people holding the reins who had been willing to support Hitler and his aims, without any convincing evidence to the average German that Germany was doomed to lose the war (as was the case in 1918), then I could just imagine what the next round of rightist propaganda would have been: “Der Fuhrer was on the verge of unleashing his new secret plan to win decisive victory when the leftist traitors assassinated our hero”. The fact of defeat to the average German had to be made undeniable, and it had to also be made clear that it was the German right wing which had led them to this disaster. This objective was largely achieved by unconditional surrender in 1945.
And sure, all the governments of that era, and today, are corrupt, including that of the Allies. However, that does not mean you can’t draw ethical distinctions and there is no difference. Nor am I arguing that there is anything inherently evil about Germany or Germans–what happened in Germany was the terrible confluence of a number of factors, historical accidents, to create a following for a Hitler. Most of these factors long predated Versailles and WWI; Hitler was not just an opportunist who was given the opportunity created by Versailles and the Great Depression, he and his program appealed to a significant segment of Germans because of said history. I say this as a US Southerner, who is aware of the troubled history of my own region, and yet who argues that the Union fighting until the unconditional surrender of Southern armies, despite the great suffering and destruction inflicted, was the correct decision. Southerners had to be shown the reality of defeat. In fact I argue that one of the problems with Reconstruction was that in too-many ways after the war we didn’t alter the South’s political and economic structure to the same degree as we did with Germany’s.
Are you arguing against the breakup of the Ottoman empire? The Mandate for Palestine? What?
StewartM