4 ms·

> The Europeans mostly ignored it because it was far away To be fair, the Americans took the same attitude to WWI and WWII for much of those wars.

by JadeNB 6y ago

gumby 6y ago
I was referring to the technical developments of the war, most specifically the impact of rail (mechanized guns,like the maxim gun, were by then prominent in colonial conquest). The economy vs economy aspect was not recognized by anyone until the 1930s as far as I can tell. On the political side I agree the US was uninterested in WWI and had a strong isolationist attitude towards the Second World War (which is why FDR fought the war mostly through executive orders through Dec 1941). But the European powers, especially the Uk, were quite interested on a political basis in the US civil war, mostly siding with the confederate side both for trade reasons and to cut a potential geopolitical rival in half. Going back to technology, I’m really not sure you could say the US was uninterested in that aspect: after WWI they became interested in air warfare and followed the work of (for example) Liddell Hart more closely than the British war office. Also it’s striking that when the US finally entered the war they chose a logistics expert (Eisenhower) as European generalissimo rather than a direct war fighter (though he had fought in WWI among other places). I think that was in part due to learning from German difficulties in France and the US (technically illegal) supply chain support to the UK from ‘39.
- nickik 6y ago
  > The economy vs economy aspect was not recognized by anyone until the 1930s as far as I can tell. In addition to my other comment, this is also totally wrong. Both Civilian and military leaders were very much thinking about this. Go for example read Russian Interior Ministers Durnovo secret assessment that was sent to Nicholas II. Many thinkers were actually obsessed with the question of total war. Some thought that it was so absurd that nobody sane would ever fight it, > "the economic cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would be so disastrous. - Norman Angell There were Russian intellectuals making the same argument. Honestly if you actually start researching WW1 and the lead up to it you discover many things that are counter to the typical WW1 you learn in school. One good source I'm reading right now that includes a discussion on this: - Towards the Flame: Empire, War and the End of Tsarist Russia But there has been quite a bit of work done on this.
  - JadeNB 6y ago
    > Honestly if you actually start researching WW1 and the lead up to it you discover many things that are counter to the typical WW1 you learn in school. I'm always interested in such new perspectives. Do you have anything further to recommend (in addition to Towards the flame)?
    - nickik 6y ago
      I have been studying WW1 for a long time so its kind difficult. A lot of new stuff, specially because of the 100 year just happened. Some revisionist stuff that was good, some that was less good. Some was just rewriting the old narrative and package if for modern audiences. A big narrative specially in the US is about Isolationism and that is why the Wealth of Nation failed. This is totally incorrect, see this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTBI86s0oSQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTBI86s0oSQ I certainty don't agree with all of these, but these are all good about WW1 and Inter-War history. - July 1914: Countdown to War - The War that Ended Peace: How Europe abandoned peace for the First World War - Dance of the Furies: Europe and the Outbreak of World War I - The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931 - The Russian Revolution: A New History - Towards the Flame: Empire, War and the End of Tsarist Russia - The End of Tsarist Russia: The March to World War I and Revolution - Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928 - Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941 - The Great Interwar Crisis and the Collapse of Globalization
      - JadeNB 6y ago
        I guess The Russian revolution is Pipes? That's the only one of these I've read. Thanks for the references!
        nickik 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russian_Revolution:_A_New_History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russian_Revolution:_A_New_... It's Sean McMeekin. He spends time on some things that are often missed. But the Revolution is of course a huge topic.

> The Europeans mostly ignored it because it was far away To be fair, the Americans took the same attitude to WWI and WWII for much of those wars.

by JadeNB 6y ago

> The Europeans mostly ignored it because it was far away To be fair, the Americans took the same attitude to WWI and WWII for much of those wars.

gumby 6y ago

I was referring to the technical developments of the war, most specifically the impact of rail (mechanized guns,like the maxim gun, were by then prominent in colonial conquest). The economy vs economy aspect was not recognized by anyone until the 1930s as far as I can tell. On the political side I agree the US was uninterested in WWI and had a strong isolationist attitude towards the Second World War (which is why FDR fought the war mostly through executive orders through Dec 1941). But the European powers, especially the Uk, were quite interested on a political basis in the US civil war, mostly siding with the confederate side both for trade reasons and to cut a potential geopolitical rival in half. Going back to technology, I’m really not sure you could say the US was uninterested in that aspect: after WWI they became interested in air warfare and followed the work of (for example) Liddell Hart more closely than the British war office. Also it’s striking that when the US finally entered the war they chose a logistics expert (Eisenhower) as European generalissimo rather than a direct war fighter (though he had fought in WWI among other places). I think that was in part due to learning from German difficulties in France and the US (technically illegal) supply chain support to the UK from ‘39.

nickik 6y ago
> The economy vs economy aspect was not recognized by anyone until the 1930s as far as I can tell. In addition to my other comment, this is also totally wrong. Both Civilian and military leaders were very much thinking about this. Go for example read Russian Interior Ministers Durnovo secret assessment that was sent to Nicholas II. Many thinkers were actually obsessed with the question of total war. Some thought that it was so absurd that nobody sane would ever fight it, > "the economic cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would be so disastrous. - Norman Angell There were Russian intellectuals making the same argument. Honestly if you actually start researching WW1 and the lead up to it you discover many things that are counter to the typical WW1 you learn in school. One good source I'm reading right now that includes a discussion on this: - Towards the Flame: Empire, War and the End of Tsarist Russia But there has been quite a bit of work done on this.
- JadeNB 6y ago
  > Honestly if you actually start researching WW1 and the lead up to it you discover many things that are counter to the typical WW1 you learn in school. I'm always interested in such new perspectives. Do you have anything further to recommend (in addition to Towards the flame)?
  - nickik 6y ago
    I have been studying WW1 for a long time so its kind difficult. A lot of new stuff, specially because of the 100 year just happened. Some revisionist stuff that was good, some that was less good. Some was just rewriting the old narrative and package if for modern audiences. A big narrative specially in the US is about Isolationism and that is why the Wealth of Nation failed. This is totally incorrect, see this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTBI86s0oSQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTBI86s0oSQ I certainty don't agree with all of these, but these are all good about WW1 and Inter-War history. - July 1914: Countdown to War - The War that Ended Peace: How Europe abandoned peace for the First World War - Dance of the Furies: Europe and the Outbreak of World War I - The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931 - The Russian Revolution: A New History - Towards the Flame: Empire, War and the End of Tsarist Russia - The End of Tsarist Russia: The March to World War I and Revolution - Stalin: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928 - Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941 - The Great Interwar Crisis and the Collapse of Globalization
    - JadeNB 6y ago
      I guess The Russian revolution is Pipes? That's the only one of these I've read. Thanks for the references!
      - nickik 6y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russian_Revolution:_A_New_History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russian_Revolution:_A_New_... It's Sean McMeekin. He spends time on some things that are often missed. But the Revolution is of course a huge topic.