World War One

[Solaris]

Let's have a look at world war one, in history class recently we've been looking at who was responsible. There's a lot of debate on it in the historical community and I thought it might be fun to bring here.

Who or what do you hold responsible for the war? I've been looking at it for a while and I keep reaching the same conclusion 'capitalism'. It was capitalism that drove the Empires to seek expansion - imperialism. The emerging nationalism in the Balkans was engineered by capitalists.

People chose to blame Britian, Germany, Russia...

Who or what do you blame and why?

 

[co05]

The mentality of society/people at the time. Pretty much your capitalism/imperialism idea, though the event that ignited the war was probably the assassination of the Archeduke

 

[Cole]

Alliances or Humanity.

As humans we want to expand and we want more power.

However if you disagree with that. Alliances. One thing a George Washington never wanted.

Simply to put, if Russia wouldn't have declared war on Germany there wouldn't have been a world war and it there would have only been a minor european conflict. However they did and it was just one big chain reaction.

The United States would have also probably ended up staying out of european affairs and kept to our domestic issues.

 

[co05]

Simply to put, if Russia wouldn't have declared war on Germany there wouldn't have been a world war and it there would have only been a minor european conflict. However they did and it was just one big chain reaction.

Probably would have adverted WWII as well.

 

[Solaris]

Alliances or Humanity.

As humans we want to expand and we want more power.

However if you disagree with that. Alliances. One thing a George Washington never wanted.

Simply to put, if Russia wouldn't have declared war on Germany there wouldn't have been a world war and it there would have only been a minor european conflict. However they did and it was just one big chain reaction.

The United States would have also probably ended up staying out of european affairs and kept to our domestic issues.

The alliances one is definitely a good argument. Russia only declared war on Germany because they knew Germany was going to attack them after they attacked Austria-Hungary, and because of how long it took to mobilize troops it was either go all out and attack everybody or attack nobody.

Now German knew that if Russia attacked them France would follow suit as they were allies, so Germany, as soon as Russia declared war, followed the Schlieffen plan which told them to invade France through belgium, rape them, then return to the east to fight Russia's troops which would have just mobilized.

But Alliances at the time were nessacary, neither Russia nor France could ever hope to defeat Germany on their own, as as Germany was growing stronger they needed strong allies to help fight in case of a war.

 

[co05]

U.S. involvement = monetary interests.

 

[Gray Fox]

Robert Newman had a pretty good theory.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967&q=Robert+Newmans+History+of+Oil

Let's have a look at world war one, in history class recently we've been looking at who was responsible. There's a lot of debate on it in the historical community and I thought it might be fun to bring here.

Who or what do you hold responsible for the war? I've been looking at it for a while and I keep reaching the same conclusion 'capitalism'. It was capitalism that drove the Empires to seek expansion - imperialism. The emerging nationalism in the Balkans was engineered by capitalists.

People chose to blame Britian, Germany, Russia...

Who or what do you blame and why?

I don't agree, in that case you might as well blame ambition, or drive. Capitalism is a too wide of concept to blame it something like a specific war.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I'm actually going to have to do a report on WWI at the end of the semester in my bullsh17 credit..ahem...history class.

 

[gick]

The old Alliance system, combined with the old Imperial mentality of thinking you can take on anyone you like (this applies to Russia, Britain, France and Germany). Im no expert on the First World War, im more knowledgeable about the second.

I think just blaming it on capitalism is simplistic at best, and interpreting the best in order to enforce your own beliefs at worst.

 

[Solaris]

The old Alliance system, combined with the old Imperial mentality of thinking you can take on anyone you like (this applies to Russia, Britain, France and Germany). Im no expert on the First World War, im more knowledgeable about the second.

I think just blaming it on capitalism is simplistic at best, and interpreting the best in order to enforce your own beliefs at worst.

Why did Germany seek to expand?
Why did Britain want to stop it?

 

[co05]

Why did Germany seek to expand?

'Cause they're Germans.

 

[Solaris]

'Cause they're Germans.

Racist?

 

[Cole]

Racist?

Doesn't exist.

Germany seeked to expand because of human nature.(power)
British wanted to stop them because of human nature.(survival)

 

[Solaris]

Doesn't exist.

Germany seeked to expand because of human nature.(power)
British wanted to stop them because of human nature.(survival)

So imperialism, thus capitalism.

If you're going to blame human nature we might as well throw in the towel as a specicies.

 

[theotherguy]

I twas the old views of war and alliance superimposed onto 20th century technology. There was too much nationalism, too many secret alliances, too much optomism and too many industrialized weapons. WWII, in turn was the aftermath of economic depression and the suceeding dictatorships that followed it. WWI was basically naiive 19th century people fighting a war that was far ahead of their time. They expected the war to last no more than a few months, and there to be glorious napoleonesque battles on open fields. Neither the leadership nor the soldeirs themselves really had a goot idea of what they were getting into. In the words of Ernest Hemmingway, to the soldiers "Abstract words such as glory, honor, courage, or hallow were obscene beside the concrete names of villages, the numbers of roads, the names or rivers, the numbers of regiments and dates." Over time they began to realize that what they fought for was meaningless.

Both world wars were pointless in nature, even though the second one was better thought out.

 

[Solaris]

What war isn't pointless?

 

[ComradeBadger]

Arguably certain elements of German culture, specifically those heavily influenced by Prussia (which has always been typically warlike) lead towards agressive behavior as a nation.

Some Historians argue that you can see the 2nd World War as a culumination in the rise and rise of right wing politics in Germany, and the 1st World War as part of that.

I'm not sure where I stand on the issue because I don't know nearly enough, and to be honest, blaming concepts such as 'capitalism' for an entire world war is not only a sweeping generalisation full of holes, but extremely naive - and shot through with ideological overtones. You take your preconceptions and attempt to force them upon the past - and make a concious effort to make them fit.

 

[Solaris]

Arguably certain elements of German culture, specifically those heavily influenced by Prussia (which has always been typically warlike) lead towards agressive behavior as a nation.

Some Historians argue that you can see the 2nd World War as a culumination in the rise and rise of right wing politics in Germany, and the 1st World War as part of that.

I'm not sure where I stand on the issue because I don't know nearly enough, and to be honest, blaming concepts such as 'capitalism' for an entire world war is not only a sweeping generalisation full of holes, but extremely naive - and shot through with ideological overtones. You take your preconceptions and attempt to force them upon the past - and make a concious effort to make them fit.

But Germany didn't really act aggressively now did it?

It was a newly established power that both Russia and France felt extremely threatened by, if it conquered either state, Germany would become a massively rival continental power and threaten the interest's of the British empire, so we can see that Britain would have a strong interest in stopping it. In the decade before the war we can see stronger military links being established between Britian and France and to an extent Russia, these links were inheritently anti-German by Nature with plans being drawn up about co-operation in a military action against Germany.

On the East Russia was upgrading it's military which would be completed by 1917, these upgrades would dramatically reduce it's mobilization time and therefore render the German Schliefan plan utterly useless. Germany new that if it left it to wait, if a European war did break out later, it would suffer a lot worse than if it started it earlier.

If Germany was going to become 'great' it would have to break out of its continental entrapment and this meant war. As time was passing the prospect of winning a war was becoming less and less favorable and therefore it can be argued that aggressive military policies by Britain and Russia drove Germany into provoking a war at the earliest opportunity.

 

[ComradeBadger]

The comment about agressiveness was directed at the racist remark - but still.

Interesting point, but I don't see how any of that backs up your 'capitalism was the sole cause' arguement.

Germany wishing to become 'great' falls under right-wing political thought, just for future reference.

 

[Solaris]

The comment about agressiveness was directed at the racist remark - but still.

Interesting point, but I don't see how any of that backs up your 'capitalism was the sole cause' arguement.

Germany wishing to become 'great' falls under right-wing political thought, just for future reference.

Well the capitalist argument goes as follows:

Imperialism is based on a desire for economic strength and usually some silly aristocratic nationalistic notion too. Capitalism created the nation states in the sense that we know them to be, nationalism was a useful invention by the rulers becuase it created irrational beliefs designed to support the leaders in a war against another country.

Nationalism basically pitted the proletariats of the world against each other, the inter-nation wars created a facade for the real emerging class conflicts. If nation states as we know it were broken down and a society built on co-operation and equality was created, wars would be a thing of the past. As long as we have capitalism we will have imperialism and all the wars and destruction that come with it.

If we remove self interest from the equation when examining the preWW1 situation we can see their was really no reason to fight.

 

[<RJMC>]

as far as I know it was for the assasination of franz ferdinan(sp?lol) and he controlled a empire that included germany (right)and occupied this country,where the assasins came front,and when the assasins where catched theyr weapons where made by this other country that didnt hav good relations so they blamed it and one thing bring to another,anyway I dont know much

and solaris say is capitalism cuz he is a sad castro's lover

 

[PvtRyan]

and a society built on co-operation and equality was created, wars would be a thing of the past.

How is that different from saying "if the world's problems were solved then the world's problems would be solved"? The thing is, that's not *ever* gonna happen. What you propose isn't the solution, it's the end goal. You don't provide the way to get there, other than communism which is an awful solution. Until the very nature of humans changes, capitalism will actually be the force that promotes social wellbeing. A system that focuses on the material gain of individuals will have a social society as the end result (because that's in the best interest of every individual). Just like selfish genes can lead to altruistic creatures.

As long as we have capitalism we will have imperialism and all the wars and destruction that come with it.

No, as long as we have irrationality, we will have that. Irrationality can be caused by many things, including capitalism, communism, religion and just about everything in between. Unfortunately, irrationality isn't going anywhere.

 

[co05]

If nation states as we know it were broken down and a society built on co-operation and equality was created, wars would be a thing of the past.

Nation vs Nation would be a thing of the past. There'll possibly be civil war. Plus, humans will always disagree and fight, it's human nature.

 

[staticprimer]

The alliance system, something relatively new at that time, was certainly a major factor in the cause of WWI. Do not discount Europe's desire to go to war, however. At the outbreak of WWI, Europe had not experienced a significant war for several decades. Tensions had risen quite drastically due in no small part to Germany's rapid rise in power and there was a general consensus that a war would be a good way to "clear the air", so to speak. Because people had not experienced a "modern" war and were still stuck with the romantic 19th century view of war, people were not dissuaded from the idea of war. The still viewed war as something dignified and civil.

 

[kirovman]

Of course self-interests prevailed. It's the same in any situation.

If you have a rival, who is making strides in bettering themselves, possibly at the detriment of you, you are going to want to try and get a slice of the pie too. It's survivalist nature.

Germany, as a newly emerging power didn't have the empires that Britain and France did, and seeked to restore the balance.

Similarly, the British Empire was formed as a reaction to the fact that the Spanish were setting up a global empire.

Nobody likes to be left behind.

As for today, there's more of a feeling of cooperation and teamwork to achieve results in the world, rather than the do or die mentality of the old days. However I'll freely admit that it's far from perfect, even today. Although now we have a much better society and human rights than before World War 1, so maybe it's true that it wasn't all in vain (even if it wasn't the leader's intentions at the time).

 

[Llama]

Well the capitalist argument goes as follows:

Imperialism is based on a desire for economic strength and usually some silly aristocratic nationalistic notion too. Capitalism created the nation states in the sense that we know them to be, nationalism was a useful invention by the rulers because it created irrational beliefs designed to support the leaders in a war against another country.

Nationalism basically pitted the proletariats of the world against each other, the inter-nation wars created a facade for the real emerging class conflicts. If nation states as we know it were broken down and a society built on co-operation and equality was created, wars would be a thing of the past. As long as we have capitalism we will have imperialism and all the wars and destruction that come with it.

If we remove self interest from the equation when examining the preWW1 situation we can see their was really no reason to fight.

I can't say I agree with this. Claiming that humans in our present state could create a society based on equality and co-operation is extremely naive.
Capitalism did not create nation states in the slightest. Take the crusades - Highly illogical wars based (effectively) on imperialism, but backed up by a feudal system that was not in the least capitalist.

However, I do agree that self-interest was the main reason behind the war - There was nothing more than pride at stake, and I suspect by the time the war ended most had forgotten why it started.

(Finally, I'm Noting that it was stupidity on the part of the allies - In particular the French - that let to the Germans getting such a raw deal after the treaty of Versailles (I can't spell, apologies), which in turn could have been a main contributing factor in the build up to the second world war.

 

[Solaris]

Well yes, this goal of equality and what not would be reached through communism.

Now you say it's an awful system and what not, tell me, have you ever heard a communist speak? Have you ever read any communist materials?

 

[Gray Fox]

Well yes, this goal of equality and what not would be reached through communism.

Now you say it's an awful system and what not, tell me, have you ever heard a communist speak? Have you ever read any communist materials?

But the road to hell is paved with good intentions!

Now the intentions behind communism may be good, but communism has proven to be unattainable. Plus it's ideals strongly lean on Positief liberty which leads to totalitarianism.

 

[PvtRyan]

Well yes, this goal of equality and what not would be reached through communism.

Now you say it's an awful system and what not, tell me, have you ever heard a communist speak? Have you ever read any communist materials?

And how is that relevant? I know communism (or Marxism) is a system that strives for equality between the working classes and the upper class, based on a kind of society that doesn't even exist any more in the West. That's all you need to know. No, I haven't read Das Kapital, why, does it contain a secret recipe to make the concept of equality not stupid? Or are you just trying to trick me into admiting I am not knowledgable on the subject because I haven't read the salon socialist books you have? Because it doesn't matter, all the apologetics in the world cannot make a wrong concept right.

I am willing to bet a capitalist society will eventually be more moral and social than a communist society. Why? Because a capitalist society plays into the desires of the individual and can motivate them to do good. A capitalist society rewards people for being social (you getting a job to buy that nice car directly benefits others) while a communist one lacks the incentive for people to actually perform. To reuse the analogy: selfish genes can result in a selfless creature.

 

[Solaris]

And how is that relevant? I know communism (or Marxism) is a system that strives for equality between the working classes and the upper class, based on a kind of society that doesn't even exist any more in the West. That's all you need to know. No, I haven't read Das Kapital, why, does it contain a secret recipe to make the concept of equality not stupid? Or are you just trying to trick me into admiting I am not knowledgable on the subject because I haven't read the salon socialist books you have? Because it doesn't matter, all the apologetics in the world cannot make a wrong concept right.

I am willing to bet a capitalist society will eventually be more moral and social than a communist society. Why? Because a capitalist society plays into the desires of the individual and can motivate them to do good. A capitalist society rewards people for being social (you getting a job to buy that nice car directly benefits others) while a communist one lacks the incentive for people to actually perform. To reuse the analogy: selfish genes can result in a selfless creature.

Basically, you've reached the conclusion communism is stupid, without first looking at the reasoning behind it.

Just please at least understand what it is, all your arguments against it are explained and more.

Anyway, let's not get off topic.

 

[PvtRyan]

Basically, you've reached the conclusion communism is stupid, without first looking at the reasoning behind it.

Just please at least understand what it is, all your arguments against it are explained and more.

Anyway, let's not get off topic.

Offtopic? Seems perfectly ontopic, I doubt anyone here believes this topic is anything but a chance for you to rip on capitalism.

So apparently, my understanding of communism is flawed. No doubt that I do not know all the apologetics for it (and that's all they are) but it doesn't matter when the concept of it is rotten.

Communism is a system that strives for elimination of classes and private property (so: equality). Correct? Well, that's only the top layer and the concept already becomes silly there. Doesn't matter what else there is. Not to mention it's based on a kind of society that's no longer existant.

 

[Solaris]

Offtopic? Seems perfectly ontopic, I doubt anyone here believes this topic is anything but a chance for you to rip on capitalism.

So apparently, my understanding of communism is flawed. No doubt that I do not know all the apologetics for it (and that's all they are) but it doesn't matter when the concept of it is rotten.

Communism is a system that strives for elimination of classes and private property (so: equality). Correct? Well, that's only the top layer and the concept already becomes silly there. Doesn't matter what else there is. Not to mention it's based on a kind of society that's no longer existant.

No it isn't.

If we were to turn communist today:

All business would be owned by the state.
Everyone will get 'paid' the same
More Democracy

That's communism in 3 lines really, it may look stupid but It's very hard to understand what meant without doing some further reading.

For example, I cannot stress enough the importance of reading or at least understanding some of the theories Karl Marx developed, it changes everyone. You don't have to be a communist to agree with Karl Marx's explanations of capitalism.

When you understand some Marxist theories you understand how Rich people can exist in society, why as long as their are rich their must be poor, how the rich exploit the labor of the workers and much more. After understanding and learning this, it's almost impossible to agree to stay with the same system which is in your eyes so absurd it's amazing it could ever exist and you're inevitably lead to become a socialist because it makes sense. At least that's what happened to me.

 

[PvtRyan]

No it isn't.

Yes it, is, because you repeat me here:

All business would be owned by the state.
Everyone will get 'paid' the same

That's exactly what I said, equality and abandoning private property.

More Democracy

Yay, another bad system in a bad system. But that's something that is offtopic.

That's communism in 3 lines really, it may look stupid but It's very hard to understand what meant without doing some further reading.

It doesn't matter. I don't know how I can emphasize that any more. I have no doubt communism would work if we weren't talking about humans, but we are. And equality and humans does not compute in modern society. It fails to work in the human factor, which makes the theory irrelvant.

You don't have to be a communist to agree with Karl Marx's explanations of capitalism.

After understanding and learning this, it's almost impossible to agree to stay with the same system which is in your eyes so absurd it's amazing it could ever exist and you're inevitably lead to become a socialist

Contradict much?

 

[sinkoman]

Solaris, it seems to me like you're just finding new reason to bitch about Capitalism.

Communism fails. It looks great on paper, but ultimately human nature makes it fail, whether it be the lazy ****s that ruin it for everybody, or the corrupt leaders that communism as a whole doesn't seem to be able to handle as well as capitalism.

Sure, capitalism is a grim and gruesome system, but is that really so bad?

And really, Communist nations were in on expansion/imperialism just as much as the Capitalist ones.

 

[co05]

When you understand some Marxist theories you understand how Rich people can exist in society, why as long as their are rich their must be poor, how the rich exploit the labor of the workers and much more.

Which is why we see things such as the Progressive Era and reform happen.

 

[co05]

More Democracy

And pardon me here, but I believe there is no form of government implicit in Communism, it's an ideal.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Communism was based upon a 19th Century view of the world in which labour was the primary source of income for the rich: the poor sold their manual labour. This doesn't happen nearly as much anymore - it's not on which the economy is built.

A problem with glorifying manual labour is that there is essentially nothing to glorify - anyone can do it, it's not a unique skill, why should it be valued the same as say, a physician, someone of much higher intelligence and performing a job that is of far greater value to society?

Communism creates a closed and inward-looking society, eventually the problem of the society not having enough natural resources will cause issues. Not every country has enough fertile soil to feed it's citizens, or sources of energy.
Why would there be any incentive to progress and create a better quality of life for people - everything is as it is, and remains as such.

Also, what if not everyone wants communism? Is it to be forced on all those who oppose it?

The country stagnates due to a lack of progress, falls behind other world powers, citizens defect to seek a better quality of life - often those with skills more highly valued elsewhere - the country suffers a 'brain drain'.

Communism doesn't take into account human nature, and as it is a political system, it should take human nature into account. It ISN'T a good idea.

 

[Sulkdodds]

You don't have to be a communist to agree with Karl Marx's explanations of capitalism.

True. I see some truth in Marxism but I am very much against communism.

a physician, someone of much higher intelligence

I don't know about that, because in my experience doctors can be very silly. The medical profession (and other ones) might seem to have two functions in society: one, the incredibly important task of administering/developing/studying/whatevering medicine and two, allowing perfectly mundane people from alright backgrounds to live very comfortably as long as they devote a lot of time to memorising a lot of things.

Also, what if not everyone wants communism? Is it to be forced on all those who oppose it?

As far as I know...yes. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is supposed to eradicate all those who would resist, isn't it? Lovely.


BUT I BELIEVE WE WERE DISCUSSING WORLD WAR ONE, GUYS
Criticise Solaris' historiography rather than his politics. And if the former be unduly influenced by the latter, so be it - his argument will fare on its own merits (or lack of them).

Some here have asserted Solaris just wants another opportunity to bash capitalism, and he probably does as evidenced by his random launching into communist theory halfway through a history post, but we shouldn't rise to his bait. Just stick to the history, eh?

Some Historians argue that you can see the 2nd World War as a culumination in the rise and rise of right wing politics in Germany, and the 1st World War as part of that.

Maybe, but at the same time, around the late 20s and early 30s, the social democrats (or whatever they were called - the nice ones) were initially doing far better in the polls and elections than the National Socialists. Hitler had to tone down his jew-bashing, nationalism, his fire and brimstone, and focus rather on the whole 'brot und arbeit' aspect of his policy - promising stability, solidarity and an end to depression - in order to win support.

It's similar to the argument over whatsisname, Goldhagen, him wot wrote Hitler's Willing executioners where he argues among other things that anti-semitism was inherent in German culture of the time. But the stuff above is part of the evidence against him, as is the fact (I think) that a few other countries treated jews worse before the war.

 

[Solaris]

I'll make a communism thread soon, we can discuss it there.

I blame capitalism for the war because I believe it was fought in the interest's of capitalist nations. The proletariat's of the respective countries had nothing to gain (or lose) by fighting the war. They lived in quite terrible conditions before the war and got paid absolute pittance. For many, life wasn't worth living. At the same time, the bourgeoisie were very prosperous, exploiting workers for their labor, paying them barely enough to live on whilst making enough profits themselves to live very luxurious lives indeed.

So, in Britains case, as Germany became more powerful a force, it began to become a potential threat to their empire, which was generating a lot of wealth for the richer classes.

Germany on the other hand needed to expand to ever become economically successful, it needed a port on the Mediterranean and many people at the time believed that if it did not expand it would not grow into a great and rich power.

So we had rival interest's of the rich in different countries, the workers on the other hand had no interest in foreign trade and what not, they never got a share of the wealth. So the working classes were sold bunk such as nationalism and 'protecting Beligum' and what not for the more sinister interest's of the rich.

That is why I blame capitalism, it pits the 'workers' against each other when they have no personal stake in the conflict and they are driven to killing each other in the millions for nothing.

 

[ComradeBadger]

It's not a rise in right-wing politics in the population of Germany, more so it's leaders - and the creation of such a hegemony would have been done subtley - for example, Hitler toning now his policies.

However, the arguement I mentioned, I don't in fact agree with, as my studies in the Historikerstreit have taught me a fair bit about Germany and the unique problems it faces in creating nationalist feeling.