1914 towards the Age of uncertainty

SWlNE: Yesterday, [June 28] - The heir to Austria-Hungary's throne, and his wife were assassinated by a Serbian nationalist while they were visiting Bosnia. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia.

From right there, that final straw sparked an unnecessary world war.

I think it's interesting to follow the timeline, considering the present tension between countries.

duncan124:
There had been an arms race for years and everyone had already said Britain and Germany were preparing for war.

SWlNE: Very true.
Imperialism led to that arms race but Nationalism played a part in that too.
That paranoia and suspicion mixed with hatred of other nations.

chronology: Swine, I am with you in thinking it was extreme Nationalism and chauvinism that led to WW1. Even everyday folks in Europe were lining up to join the Military back than, eager, ready and willing to attack their neighbours. Personally I do not see any such attitude today, other than in places like the Ukrane.

If I may say, you have an unfortunate User Name here in Wire.

duncan124:
Here is an interesting page;-

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/germanys-superpower-quest-caused-world-war-i-10778

In it Michael Lind argues that the Germans could have created a " German EU " from " Belgium to Baghdad" but admits they did not have the emotional state of mind to do that.

The facts in hindsight seem to say that the Franco-German war was also caused by the Germans being likely to react against the political changes in France

http://francoprussianwar.com

Before that there was the German-Danish war and before that Sweden controlled Northern Germany, Norway and Denmark.

The Germans seem intent to exploit political problems for their own advantage resulting in them being engaged in warfare and the rise of a Military regime which would stop any other solution to political changes.

SWlNE:
Propaganda was an effective tool in getting the public support too, and it is still in effect today. I see attitudes of Nationalism, unfortunately. The past might be forgiven but I don't think our wars/conflicts will be looked on as being due to naivety.

Nah, I'd say it is unfortunate that you think that a username is unfortunate...'a rose by any other name', don't worry on it.

I'll check out your pages, Duncan, thanks.

Today, [August 1] - Germany declares war on Russia.


[Edit: On a side note, remember too that in the some cases conscription was later introduced so that forcing to join was there].

chronology: Swine. There was limited conscription in Britain anyway. People had romantic ideas about war and fanatical nationalism. People often belonged to 'War Clubs' where they dressed as dashing Officers in Machintosh coats and wore piston holsters, and military caps.

By comparison, Americans were still haunted by experiences in the Civil War, memories of Gettysberg and Bullrun were burned onto their minds with personal family stories of lost men folk. The murder of Abraham Lincoln at the end of the Civil War added to the collective mourning of Americans. That was why Americans stayed out of WW1 for so long, they saw war as no joke, it was something that scared each American family. Washington was also careful to avoid offending the South when the war ended by avoiding encouraging chauvinism in songs and theatre about the war. Europe was the opposite to this with fanatical nationalism in music halls and Government buildings and newspapers. when enlistment stations were opened there were long lines of volunteers with hopes of driving a bayonet into a rival countries servicemen. Most Americans saw all this bloodlust in Europe as insanity, even on Wire today you can still find people spreading hatred about some other European countries, no need to mention his name, he stands out like dog droppings on a pavement.

duncan124:
" Contact with the enemy causes Shell Shock " the army admitted towards the end of the war.

Having to face the Germans was the cause of the many cases of nervous disorders which did not happen again in the next war.

SWlNE: Chronology, conscription happened later on because of the need for persons to join in the war, it also had to happen in the US. To me that zeal amongst the majority was lost as the war dragged on longer, there was a movement from being paranoid & nationalistic to being paranoia & desperate where the war was pressed to continue. This wasn't because of some deep-seated blood-lust but instead it was driven by Government-lead propaganda (on all sides). I think that there were some who moved against the war as well. Some how I don't see it that people opt to go to war because of pure hate for another country's servicemen but instead they were lead to believe that they must do it to protect their country. The same chant that is used today. In fact it has been used in WW1 and into our era. You can look back at the vintage war posters and see it.
Europe has had many wars prior to WW1 so they weren't naive on warfare but there was no other war that can be compared to WW1 prior to it.
The Governments had their deep reason for wanting to go to war and it was not due to bloodlust but what they thought they could gain (same as today). There was tension during that time.

chronology: Swine. Britains biggest war before WW1 was the Boar war, or second Boar war however you see it. Emily Hobhouse led a major womens movement to highlight the suffering of Boar women and children in Concentration Camps during that war, and the shockingly high death rate of Boar children. Londoners were outraged at the photographs of dead Boar children and Emily's reports of how Boar fathers kneeled at the beds of their dyng children in the Camps.

But the fact is that made little impression on most folks in Britain leading up to WW1, while Americans were adamant the national tragedy of the Civil War should not be repeated, Europeans still had romantic ideas about war. Like I said, WW1 was still a 'popular' war in the peoples minds. It is wrong to blame the Governments for the rush to war.

Most often countries blunder into wars. When Hitler was told about Britain and France declaring war on Germany in 1939 he was speechless for a short time, then he began talking about making 'Air Corridors' to supply Germany, he was in a state of shock for hours afterwards, he had no idea a major world war would break out.

The American Military as well in Vietnam were surprised that after their show of support for South Vietnam, that Revolutionary groups would attack U.S. Forces, to Americans it seemed suicidal even delusional by the Vietcong.

SWlNE:
The Boer war can't be compared to WW1, I don't mean the scale of it but also the nature of the wars. I'm not seeing how it relates to the discussion or why it was mentioned.

World war 1 was closer to home for England and not for the US. The US had a very passive approach in the beginning by trading arms. The break out of the war did not threaten the US. The US government will have no bases for joining in the war at that time.

What romantic view of warfare in Europe? It is a continent that has been plagued by wars and they knew what it entailed, no one wanted war to take place on their soil, however WW1 was not as other wars. It has its roots not in 'love for blood and warfare' as you might think but in politics and strongly in the agendas of the various Governments. Remember too that in 1914 there was a lot of socialist within the population this will meant that the aggressor approach will not sit well with the population so the it was turned into a defensive approach in order to get men to fight for their country. The population was convinced that they were in a defensive war, protecting their nation. The Austria-Hungarians was told they had to fight for the death of Ferdinand. The Germans were lead to believe that they had no choice. During this time they didn't believe they started the war. There are two things always at play: 1. What is really happening & 2. What is told to the people as what is really happening. In the end they blamed the Germans with the conference in Paris. It is still debatable on which country is to 'blame'.

It is wrong to blame the Governments? Who instilled aggressive foreign policies? Who fueled the war? Who misinformed the population? Who instilled propaganda? There is a lot to the war still yet to be discussed and it was not clear-cut, there were a lot of elements (alliances being one out of several) that lead up to the break out of it and not a sudden "thirst for blood" by Europeans.

I don't know where you got your idea that Europe had a romantic view on war and there was some bloodlust among Europeans but I will put it down as your opinion.

duncan124:
Winston Churchill brought his commission in the Boer wars and by the time of the Great War was a War Profiteer.

People sent to the Boer war were all " recent Britains " , or in English , people from abroad and most often from Germany.

By the 1890s Germany had started a Arms Race and was Spying on other counties to supply their own industry with ideas.

People like Mr Lancaster had to sign an agreement that they would not only not supply the Germans but also that they would resist German attempts to ' gain information '.

chronology: Swine, I understand your viewpoint, but really you seem to know little about Europe. During the Iraq war there was little enthusiasm for liberating Iraq, even within the Services, but some soldiers still managed to look forward to a full on battle. One young lad told me before he shipped out for Iraq 'we are going to kick some @ss'.

During the Falkland crisis thousands of men lined up at the army recruiting Offices hoping for a chance of a fight with the Argentines. There was no propaganda at all by the government, these were just guys looking for adventure, it was like that at the start of WW1.

SWlNE:
Chronology, it's not a viewpoint, it is what the Europeans were subjected to. If there is a point that you disagree with then state it directly and I'll show you more in depth. You are jumping from one thing to the next, and I don't know what the Falklands have to do with this or if you want to go into a conversation on the Falkland war.

What some young lad told you is relevant in what way?

Propaganda being spewed by the government during and after WW1 (all the way up to WW2 and present) included military recruitment campaigns, posters that call for 'the brave men on the font', the US' famous "American wants YOU" poster, posters used for gaining financial support by the population, movies/statements used to create paranoia in the population all so that the support for the wars will continue.
[1] "In 1917, the government (of the UK) set up the National War Aims committee, spurred by fears public unrest was near. In fact, revolution was probably unlikely. But the government were keen to prevent – or delay – the moment when they might have to control the population by force."
[2] "Wilson picked George Creel, a muckraking journalist from Missouri, to head the organization. Under Creel's leadership, the CPI carried out activities designed to stir America's fervor for war. The Four-Minute Men, one of Creel's most successful creations, was a volunteer group of thousands of men who visited meetings and movie theaters across the country to make pro-war speeches. Both a Films Division and a News Division were established to help get out the war message. What was missing, Creel saw, was a way to reach those Americans who might not read newspapers, attend meetings or watch movies. For this task, Creel created the Division of Pictorial Publicity. "

Sources for you to check:
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zq8c7ty
[2] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/gallery/posters.html


These are only two examples but there are many more and also from the other countries. Propaganda is the main tool in getting the population to support a war, there is no "bloodlust". The idea must first be instilled.
The same can be applied to you and your fantasy view of the US-led war into Iraq as being dubbed 'liberating Iraq', where did you get that idea? It's not a question that I'm seeking an answer to but more one for you to dwell on at your own time and for yourself.

Irish Toaster: WW1, was it worth it? If you could go back in time, would you have stopped it?

ghostgeek: And who's to say the alternative wouldn't wouldn't have been worse?

The13th: There won't be WW if Britain choose not to enter the war. Let the German flex their muscle and settle their score with France and cut out their sphere of influence. Point is many other countries like Poland Russia France do not have a choice - German is going to settle score with them. Britain do have a choice and choose war.