Tweet
Business Insider
July 27 2014
Why Today Is Different From The 1914 Outbreak Of World War I
Gus Lubin
With the world caught in a series of potential proxy wars from
Ukraine to the Middle East and tensions ratcheting in East Asia and
elsewhere, many have compared the present to 1914, when a trigger
event in Sarajevo activated military alliances and led to a
devastating global war.
Especially on the 100-year anniversary of the start of World War I,
the similarities come to mind easily, but is history really repeating?
Richard Evans, the Regius Professor of History at Cambridge,
identified key difference between now and then in a January article in
the New Statesman. These include balancing tendencies of the
multipolar world we live in now as well as the emergence of
"institutions of collective security" like the United Nations, which
makes a big difference even if they may seem ineffective.
Above all, he believes people have learned from history, as he said in
an interview with the New Republic:
I think the major difference now is that we've had two World Wars, and
we've had the nuclear age. Whereas in 1914, states, and for that
matter most of the public in most nations, had what we now think of as
a very irresponsible attitude toward war. They went into it in a
gung-ho way. Now I think we are much more afraid of a major war, and
we are much more cautious about it. I think the attitude of
politicians today is very different from what it was in 1914.
As for WWI not preventing WWII, many see the latter as an extension of
the former, and anyway WWII had a greater effect. Writes Evans:
The destruction caused by the Second World War, with its 50 million or
more dead, its ruined cities, its genocides, its widespread negation
of civilised values, had a far more powerful effect than the deaths
caused by the First World War, which were (with exceptions, notably
the genocide of a million or more Armenian civilians, killed by the
Turks in 1915) largely confined to troops on active service. In 1945,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided an additional, ter-rible warning of
what would happen if the world went to war again.
Harvard Professor Joseph S. Nye, Jr. similarly commented on changing
attitudes toward war in a January article:
Today's world is different from the world of 1914 in several important
ways. One is that nuclear weapons give political leaders the
equivalent of a crystal ball that shows what their world would look
like after escalation. Perhaps if the Emperor, the Kaiser, and the
Czar had had a crystal ball showing their empires destroyed and their
thrones lost in 1918, they would have been more prudent in 1914.
Certainly, the crystal-ball effect had a strong influence on US and
Soviet leaders during the Cuban missile crisis. It would likely have a
similar influence on US and Chinese leaders today.
Another difference is that the ideology of war is much weaker
nowadays. In 1914, war really was thought to be inevitable, a
fatalistic view reinforced by the Social Darwinist argument that war
should be welcomed, because it would "clear the air" like a good
summer storm.
Notably, his comments focused on China, not Russia, which has emerged
as a major threat to peace. But in an April column on Russia's
Ukrainian intervention, Nye noted how measured the international
community's reaction has been and how slow diplomatic and economic
responses appear to be the best and most likely results.
These differences don't mean the world isn't in a scary place right
now, but our ceaseless asking if this is 1914 again may our best hope
for why it isn't.
http://www.businessinsider.com/differences-between-now-and-1914-outbreak-of-wwi-2014-7
July 27 2014
Why Today Is Different From The 1914 Outbreak Of World War I
Gus Lubin
With the world caught in a series of potential proxy wars from
Ukraine to the Middle East and tensions ratcheting in East Asia and
elsewhere, many have compared the present to 1914, when a trigger
event in Sarajevo activated military alliances and led to a
devastating global war.
Especially on the 100-year anniversary of the start of World War I,
the similarities come to mind easily, but is history really repeating?
Richard Evans, the Regius Professor of History at Cambridge,
identified key difference between now and then in a January article in
the New Statesman. These include balancing tendencies of the
multipolar world we live in now as well as the emergence of
"institutions of collective security" like the United Nations, which
makes a big difference even if they may seem ineffective.
Above all, he believes people have learned from history, as he said in
an interview with the New Republic:
I think the major difference now is that we've had two World Wars, and
we've had the nuclear age. Whereas in 1914, states, and for that
matter most of the public in most nations, had what we now think of as
a very irresponsible attitude toward war. They went into it in a
gung-ho way. Now I think we are much more afraid of a major war, and
we are much more cautious about it. I think the attitude of
politicians today is very different from what it was in 1914.
As for WWI not preventing WWII, many see the latter as an extension of
the former, and anyway WWII had a greater effect. Writes Evans:
The destruction caused by the Second World War, with its 50 million or
more dead, its ruined cities, its genocides, its widespread negation
of civilised values, had a far more powerful effect than the deaths
caused by the First World War, which were (with exceptions, notably
the genocide of a million or more Armenian civilians, killed by the
Turks in 1915) largely confined to troops on active service. In 1945,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided an additional, ter-rible warning of
what would happen if the world went to war again.
Harvard Professor Joseph S. Nye, Jr. similarly commented on changing
attitudes toward war in a January article:
Today's world is different from the world of 1914 in several important
ways. One is that nuclear weapons give political leaders the
equivalent of a crystal ball that shows what their world would look
like after escalation. Perhaps if the Emperor, the Kaiser, and the
Czar had had a crystal ball showing their empires destroyed and their
thrones lost in 1918, they would have been more prudent in 1914.
Certainly, the crystal-ball effect had a strong influence on US and
Soviet leaders during the Cuban missile crisis. It would likely have a
similar influence on US and Chinese leaders today.
Another difference is that the ideology of war is much weaker
nowadays. In 1914, war really was thought to be inevitable, a
fatalistic view reinforced by the Social Darwinist argument that war
should be welcomed, because it would "clear the air" like a good
summer storm.
Notably, his comments focused on China, not Russia, which has emerged
as a major threat to peace. But in an April column on Russia's
Ukrainian intervention, Nye noted how measured the international
community's reaction has been and how slow diplomatic and economic
responses appear to be the best and most likely results.
These differences don't mean the world isn't in a scary place right
now, but our ceaseless asking if this is 1914 again may our best hope
for why it isn't.
http://www.businessinsider.com/differences-between-now-and-1914-outbreak-of-wwi-2014-7