5 ms·

More abstractly speaking, WWI was the breakdown of a alliance system that guaranteed peace in an earlier era. On this level, there is certainly a lot more going

by yk 13y ago

More abstractly speaking, WWI was the breakdown of a alliance system that guaranteed peace in an earlier era. On this level, there is certainly a lot more going on since the end of the cold war, than between the crowning of Friedrich-Wilhelm and the outbreak of WWI. About your specific points: 1) Cultural attitude of "eh, war is not so bad and higher tech means we'll be home by xmas". Ever visited r/worldnews ? Additionally the fetichization of the military in the US is for European eyes frankly absurd. Starting with "thank you for your service", the dedication of NFL games to the military and not ending with the picture of the military in movies. 2) Germany surrounded [...] paranoid lash out. Except the Sea-Air-Battle doctrine of the Dod is carefully designed for conflicts without a staging area. ( And they are actually not that shy about the target of this plan.) [1][2] China is rightfully paranoid, the largest military in history is currently pointed at them. I will skip the 3rd point. ( I am not sure why the Ottoman empire should be the root cause, so its hard to comment on a analogy.) 4) The article skipped several points WRT the German/British alliance thing, [...] Great point, but if a US foreign policy like [3] takes hold, basically the idea that the US should preemptively prepare for a China-Russia alliance, then the US will create a China Russia alliance. Much in the same way Friedrich-Willhelm did create the Russian-French-British alliance. Skipping 5,6,7, since I do not really view these as essential; I think that there are a lot of similarities between the eve of WWI and the current situation. This does not mean, that we are in exactly the same geostrategic situation but that there are enough similarities to start worrying. Or to quote Mark Twain: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." [1] http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/20/surrounded_how_the_us_is_encircling_china_with_military_bases http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/20/surrounded... [2] http://warm-oolong-tea.blogspot.de/2013/10/the-truths-and-myths-of-airsea-battle.html http://warm-oolong-tea.blogspot.de/2013/10/the-truths-and-my... [3] http://www.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/12/02/2013-the-end-of-history-ends-2/ http://www.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/12/02/2013-the...

VLM 13y ago
Ugh with respect to the cultural attitude you're looking at it like a 2013 guy with plenty of hindsight and not looking at the 1913 perspective. Forget everything that happened post 1913 and my description and explanation of 1913 thinking makes a heck of a lot of sense. The 1913 perspective is the last total "world" war was Napoleon's escapades a century ago and it was a disaster but everyone involved is dead and mass media wasn't around and it's all crude and obsolete anyway compared to modern war. So the academics know total european world war will be awful, but random dude on the street isn't nearly as informed and concerned as a 2013 dude. The colonial battles on the other side of the planet or whatever didn't have much direct impact on Europeans. The last "major" local war was franco prussian and the Germans absolutely crushed them in months. The main difference is Germany is now unified and proportionally massively larger and more powerful than France. So WWI "should" only last weeks, this time around. Its a re-run of the franco prussian except Germany outmatches France by a factor of ten more than the first one, oh other than that whole "world" war aspect instead of just two belligerents. Oh and that little problem of having to fight on two fronts but they had an elaborate plan (plans, as usual, don't survive contact with the enemy). Financially a long war is not a very good idea on either side therefore I'm sure it will HAVE to be over soon. Of course never overlook the ability of governments to make bad financial decisions... So put this together, and in 1913, "total war? Eh, we'll be done and home by christmas" sounds totally reasonable. The dying Ottoman empire was a huge trading area. Istanbul or whatever controls all of Russia's southern ports. The trade was very important. However the Ottoman's were collapsing so "someone" is going to step into the vacuum and take over, and whoever does will gain massive power. Its something to fight about. Who allies with who in this era was controlled mostly (well, at least in major part) by who will take over and run Istanbul and all the trade that runs thru it. Theres a blindness toward the importance of the Balkan states region. Its not just they like to fight for fun, its economically a critical area, enough power to tip the balance in favor of whoever gets them, and the balance was unstable enough before this area lit up. One specific and major blindness is people not being able to tell the difference between colonial police actions and total war on home turf. Yes dudes with uniforms and rifles fight both, but its really two different concepts.
- yk 13y ago
  Apart from the first paragraph, I agree. I do not really understand why you accuse me of presentism. Perhaps because you got my argument precisely backwards. I was commenting on your entire paragraph 1), not only on the quoted part. And wanted to argue that quite a bit of current US attitude looks from a European perspective similar to the "home by christmas" attitude in Germany in 1914. ( Actually I think that the "home by christmas" attitude is quite exceptional.) I will admit that my knowledge of WWI east of Berlin is somewhat suspect, but I think the similarity proposed in the Economist article is anyhow a case of if we paint in broad strokes and squint a little, instead of a very close similarity. And therefore I think ( in the framework of this analogy), the Balkans play the role of the spark plug, rather than an integral part of the analogy. One specific and major blindness is people not being able to tell the difference between colonial police actions and total war on home turf. Yes dudes with uniforms and rifles fight both, but its really two different concepts. Great point, it is quite exactly the same difference between Global War on Terror and global war.

by yk 13y ago

VLM 13y ago

Ugh with respect to the cultural attitude you're looking at it like a 2013 guy with plenty of hindsight and not looking at the 1913 perspective. Forget everything that happened post 1913 and my description and explanation of 1913 thinking makes a heck of a lot of sense. The 1913 perspective is the last total "world" war was Napoleon's escapades a century ago and it was a disaster but everyone involved is dead and mass media wasn't around and it's all crude and obsolete anyway compared to modern war. So the academics know total european world war will be awful, but random dude on the street isn't nearly as informed and concerned as a 2013 dude. The colonial battles on the other side of the planet or whatever didn't have much direct impact on Europeans. The last "major" local war was franco prussian and the Germans absolutely crushed them in months. The main difference is Germany is now unified and proportionally massively larger and more powerful than France. So WWI "should" only last weeks, this time around. Its a re-run of the franco prussian except Germany outmatches France by a factor of ten more than the first one, oh other than that whole "world" war aspect instead of just two belligerents. Oh and that little problem of having to fight on two fronts but they had an elaborate plan (plans, as usual, don't survive contact with the enemy). Financially a long war is not a very good idea on either side therefore I'm sure it will HAVE to be over soon. Of course never overlook the ability of governments to make bad financial decisions... So put this together, and in 1913, "total war? Eh, we'll be done and home by christmas" sounds totally reasonable. The dying Ottoman empire was a huge trading area. Istanbul or whatever controls all of Russia's southern ports. The trade was very important. However the Ottoman's were collapsing so "someone" is going to step into the vacuum and take over, and whoever does will gain massive power. Its something to fight about. Who allies with who in this era was controlled mostly (well, at least in major part) by who will take over and run Istanbul and all the trade that runs thru it. Theres a blindness toward the importance of the Balkan states region. Its not just they like to fight for fun, its economically a critical area, enough power to tip the balance in favor of whoever gets them, and the balance was unstable enough before this area lit up. One specific and major blindness is people not being able to tell the difference between colonial police actions and total war on home turf. Yes dudes with uniforms and rifles fight both, but its really two different concepts.

yk 13y ago
Apart from the first paragraph, I agree. I do not really understand why you accuse me of presentism. Perhaps because you got my argument precisely backwards. I was commenting on your entire paragraph 1), not only on the quoted part. And wanted to argue that quite a bit of current US attitude looks from a European perspective similar to the "home by christmas" attitude in Germany in 1914. ( Actually I think that the "home by christmas" attitude is quite exceptional.) I will admit that my knowledge of WWI east of Berlin is somewhat suspect, but I think the similarity proposed in the Economist article is anyhow a case of if we paint in broad strokes and squint a little, instead of a very close similarity. And therefore I think ( in the framework of this analogy), the Balkans play the role of the spark plug, rather than an integral part of the analogy. One specific and major blindness is people not being able to tell the difference between colonial police actions and total war on home turf. Yes dudes with uniforms and rifles fight both, but its really two different concepts. Great point, it is quite exactly the same difference between Global War on Terror and global war.