Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war • Hacker News Board

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#111

Post by vidarh » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 1:20 PM UTC

npt4279 wrote: post #14

VLM wrote: post #7

Not a very good analysis of the causes of WWI or application to today: Problems: 1) Cultural attitude of "eh, war is not so bad and higher tech means we'll be home by xmas". See franco-prussian war and the most recent "world war" being Napoleon's activities in the decade after the revolution a century ago. I'm not seeing much warmongering as a cultural phenomena. Of course that can change quickly, 90% of everything A…

I've read quite a bit about WWI, and that's a very good analysis. Although, as a nitpick, I'd reword "the dangers of multicultalism" as "rising nationalism that made old political boundaries obsolete". The Austrian Empire worked well enough for hundreds of years... until it's various peoples started identifying more and more with their language and ethnicity.

It worked well enough then too - Austria-Hungary in its latest incarnation existed as it did as a result of negotiations to reform the empire that created an extremely devolved, decentralised government. They certainly faced problems and challenges, but they managed to work through them relatively peacefully.

The problem was not the core of the empire, but the states it occupied and annexed with force in it's last few decades, which were not in any way assimilated or integrated into the empire itself.

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#112

Post by downer87 » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 1:22 PM UTC

filbertkm wrote: post #24

paywall! "Once you've registered, you can read up to three articles each week." pretty sure I've not been to economist.com in a while. :/

  This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site 
  you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Review our cookies 
  information for more details

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#113

Post by vidarh » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 1:25 PM UTC

zobzu wrote: post #53

chr15p wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're seeing the article as being about the US, but if you see the (modern) US as (1914) Britain, then its other countries warmongering that can draw you in (1914 Britain didn't care at all about a war in the Balkans, but once Belgium and France were invaded they (we) pretty much had to be involved (Britain guaranteed Belgian neutrality and German domination of the french channel ports would have been very dangerous…

"History never happens the same way twice" Actually, history is bound to repeat itself. Details are details. Similar scenarios unfolded thousand years ago if you're willing to ignore enough details. A nation will always rise, leads through military power, and slowly fall, until another rises. In between, there are periods of fast growth and terrible loss/stagnation as well. Being resources, science or/and human lives…

And this is pretty much the point of the article: We should not look at the present and assume that just because everything looks nice and stable now, barring some minor wars here and there, we are somehow magically "different" to in the past - people entered 1914 thinking a war like World War I could never happen too.

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#114

Post by jotm » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 1:57 PM UTC

Houshalter wrote: post #66

No nuclear armed country has ever been invaded and war between two nuclear armed countries seems ridiculous. On the other hand, as the article says, people in 1914 were making similar claims about the interdependence of their economies and their new technologies. Still, it's quite a different situation.

yeah, I think if someone breached the borders of the US, Russia, China, India, or any other nuclear-armed country they'd get a (small) nuke dropped on one of their cities for sure.

Also, China makes most of the world's everyday stuff, I don't see how they would drop all those customers for a war that would bring in less profits and will leave them starving afterwards (cause no one would trust them with their factories anymore). The pre-WW1 trade ties were peanuts compared to today...

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#115

Post by berntb » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 2:03 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #110

berntb wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You troll, then insinuate I troll. Classic trick to blame others for what you do yourself -- someone browsing will just see two people calling each others names. You wrote this weird garbage: >>Communism isn't worse than anything no matter how bad. That is typical left wing dishonesty, motivated with some Western country (usually USA) being dependent on and cooperating with an unpleasant dictator that is opressive an…

With respect to his statement of communism, I believe you misread what he wrote, and so you are down-voted because others interpretation does not match yours. Read it as "communism is not automatically worse that any other possibility you can think of". E.g. compare Cuba under Castro with Germany under Hitler. The latter was obviously worse, simply because Castro did not initiate any genocides. That does not mean Cas…

I think I understand the reaction. Thank you. (I might have seen too many extremist idealists and jumped to conclusions.)

I didn't say that communism is uniquely evil. They seem like traditional dictatorships with idealistic window dressing. As king is an old name for military dictator, it is hardly coincidence that relatives of the Cuban/North Korean "dear leaders" rule the places.

Point is, they are generally among the worst regimes the last century.

It is wrong to mix dictators with the realpolitik of getting support from dictators, when they are needed. I don't approve of everything people do whom I buy lunch from. This has also become a much smaller problem after the Cold War.

Your points about Cuba and North Vietnam checking for support in other places is interesting. Most every rebel group do that, of course.

Still, any time since 1991 Cuba could have started opening up -- with enthusiastic support, at least from West Europe.

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#116

Post by VLM » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 2:26 PM UTC

yk wrote: post #92

VLM wrote: post #7

Not a very good analysis of the causes of WWI or application to today: Problems: 1) Cultural attitude of "eh, war is not so bad and higher tech means we'll be home by xmas". See franco-prussian war and the most recent "world war" being Napoleon's activities in the decade after the revolution a century ago. I'm not seeing much warmongering as a cultural phenomena. Of course that can change quickly, 90% of everything A…

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 ? Addit…

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.

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#117

Post by userulluipeste » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 2:30 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #15

VLM wrote: post #7

Not a very good analysis of the causes of WWI or application to today: Problems: 1) Cultural attitude of "eh, war is not so bad and higher tech means we'll be home by xmas". See franco-prussian war and the most recent "world war" being Napoleon's activities in the decade after the revolution a century ago. I'm not seeing much warmongering as a cultural phenomena. Of course that can change quickly, 90% of everything A…

I'm not seeing much warmongering as a cultural phenomena. In the U.S., perhaps not. But nationalism and remilitarisation are flaring up in China and Japan, respectively. Who exactly is supposed to invade China next decade if they don't invade today? China, with good reason, perceives itself as being surrounded by U.S.-allied countries looking to suppress its growth. Since growth is the currency the Communist Party tr…

"«I'm not seeing much warmongering as a cultural phenomena.» In the U.S., perhaps not."

I am not sure if there was ever a time when warmongering was looked upon more casually than today, and that is valid especially in U.S. considering the tolerant attitude toward violence in movies, video games, etc. So I would say it is exactly that, a cultural phenomena. (You'd need to look at it from outside your cultural frame if it is not obvious as it is). I'm not saying that it entirely specific to a culture though. There is a shift in how things are handled in an armed conflict that contributes to the perception of war. Before, war meant one's personal physical exposure (as a fighting soldier) whereas now that is becoming increasingly less so. Human soldiers today are needed not so much for tactical combat, but as an interacting human agent in the war zone (e.g. acting police for occupied civilian population).

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#118

Post by userulluipeste » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 5:45 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #61

VLM wrote: post #7

Not a very good analysis of the causes of WWI or application to today: Problems: 1) Cultural attitude of "eh, war is not so bad and higher tech means we'll be home by xmas". See franco-prussian war and the most recent "world war" being Napoleon's activities in the decade after the revolution a century ago. I'm not seeing much warmongering as a cultural phenomena. Of course that can change quickly, 90% of everything A…

The more important aspect was the social and government structures pre-WWI. Europe was still dominated by an aristocratic elite and a very class based society. That elite drove public opinion and policy. It served as the officer corps. It served in government and in civil service. It's very difficult today to imagine a world so different from today, especially with regard to class. Ultimately what all that meant was…

Past lessons can be forgotten. New attitudes can be sawed in current minds. The common folk didn't went to war because of the ability to become an officer or for some financial advantage, he went "for king and country". Now they go "for freedom and democracy". On the upper levels things haven't changed much - whether it's lands with wheat and strategic high-ground mountainous possessions back then, or it's land with oil and strategic places for military bases now, in the end it's basically the same.

On the cultural note with its attitude toward the war, it's just all about the strategical reality. When you grow in power, you get options. At first you choose to pick the low-hanging fruit, so you hunt down the smaller countries and/or weaker territories. Then when these are finally split-up among the powerful, the clash of titans it's only a matter of time. Soon after WW2, when the most countries got their independence, a new round of this sadistic game begun. Maybe we're not in the finals again right now, but it's only a matter of time. I would like to think like you do and have hope in humanity to become wiser and outgrow this things, but the reality appears to me a little bit different.

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#119

Post by userulluipeste » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 6:17 PM UTC

nawitus wrote: post #34

npt4279 wrote: post #9

Thankfully, I don't see WWIII starting anytime soon... But I've always strongly thought the "globalisation will make war unthinkable" argument is naive. We're tribal creatures -Nationalism trumps economic interest at the end of the day. History shows this to be true. As the author hinted at - Russia, Germany, Britain, Belgium, and France were each other's biggest trading partners - by far! Heck, a Belgium company bui…

>Nationalism trumps economic interest at the end of the day. History shows this to be true. I interpret history as "nationalism used to trump economic interests". A lot of has changed since. Most countries are representative democracies, and it's more difficult for leaders to go into a war. As for the tribal argument, I think the "nation state" is dying. Tribes are subcultures these days[1]. The internet connects me…

"Most countries are representative democracies, and it's more difficult for leaders to go into a war."

That maybe was true before, when the "democracy" craftsmanship wasn't mastered well enough. Now, I'll never bet against a government's ability to sway, at least for a while, the public perception in whatever direction, no matter how misplaced it might be. And to start a war, "for a while" is all it takes! ...Saddam's WMD?

"I think the "nation state" is dying."

Reality check - ask the Palestinians why do they want so bad a "palestinian" state when there already is an Israeli one in place? Or for that matter ask a Jew the the same question - is it that important to have an Israeli state?

Re: Uncomfortable parallels with the era that led to the first world war

#120

Post by scarmig » Mon, Dec 30, 2013, 6:34 PM UTC

dsturnbull2049 wrote: post #101

scarmig wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But you can come up with equally plausible standards that cut the other way: for instance, Germany had achieved universal male suffrage while Britain still had property requirements and was much more vigorously fighting women's suffrage with state repression. The German High Command could mobilize troops and declare war without parliamentary approval, but, hell, we effectively allow that in the USA today. And i…

I'm not quite up to speed on how bad the UK's and US's electoral systems were at the time, but a lot of the British Empire had universal suffrage, e.g. AU, NZ. Germany had tiered suffrage until the 1918 revolution. "This distribution meant that a first-class vote had 17.5 times the value of a third-class vote." and "... one result of which was that the industrialist Alfred Krupp was the only person able to vote for t…

Germany had a different electoral system (one that included equal, universal suffrage) than Prussia, which was at a different, lower level than Germany.