Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How is it that we blame capitalism for WWI, when the most capitalist world power at the time (United States) didn't have any real interest in the war until Germany attacked a ship with American passengers on it?
It seems to me that the more regulation and diminishing of free market capitalism occurs in the United States, the higher the propensity it engage in foreign wars.
The reason Germany was boxed in in 1914 was the Kaiser's bellicosity. He ignored Bismarck's maxim that the key to a successful foreign policy was a good treaty with Russia. He surrounded himself with the most militaristic advisors, like Schlieffen. His proration to the German soldiers sent to repress the Boxer rebellion chilled the world.
He engaged in a naval buildup that challenged England. Even the most ignorant of leaders should have known its inevitable response: to meet the buildup and to ally with opponents to the challenger. He met a personal, in person appeal by King Edward with scorn.
England and Germany were related by blood. Wilhelm was in part raised in the Hanover (ne, Windsor) household. He managed to make an enemy out of a friend.
So in 1914, Germany found itself isolated, only Austria left as a friend. As a German general said, Germany was shackled to a corpse.
Other actors in the WWI leadup and ignition had parts, but only as bit players.
See what I mean about phaffing about on the surface.
No. The British did not want a foothold on Europe. They turned their backs on the place and faced the open sea. Belgium was created primarily by the British as a buffer state (hence two languages) between the French and the Dutch. To keep the French in France.
Foothold, no. However, to state that the English "turned their back on the place" is incorrect. The British policy for centuries was to provide a counterweight to the power struggles in continental Europe. The British would weigh in to ensure that a balance of power was maintained so that no single nation could gain enough power and influence to dominate the whole. The British were keen observers of continental affairs and their intevention or non-intervention in an event was hardly by happenstance.
Ultimately the Kaiser's decision to mobilize was heavily influenced by English statements that they wished to and would remain neutral, including assurances from George V himself. Had England said that they would react against German moves, then the Kaiser may very well have backed down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
I do tend to be very good at that though.
A pity Karl Marx did not write that book as it would have been different.
You need to get to the root cause which was economic and at least have some sort of solution to prevent these conflicts reoccurring - to eliminate at root. Most of the posts here are all about what started the fighting (who threw the first stone), phaffing about on the surface, while the root of the conflict was much deeper.
The long depression caused the Grab for Africa for sure. Why did they want Africa? It was the wealth of its land and resources, that is why. That was perceived as the way to more wealth and get out of the depressed situation they found themselves ion. In short appropriating "economic rent", unearned income. Even the USA went on a land grab in west and overseas.
Britain was strong, and was until WW1 and possibly quite a time after as well. What caused Germany to militarise?
They had no great empire to protect. The way to instant wealth then was to "rent seek" - appropriate wealth others owned or created. "rent seeking is still the way to quick and unearned wealth.
Get to the root. Try. Do not phaff on the surface.
I freely stated in my post that economics is ultimately the driver of history. I don't think anyone denies that competition for markets and resources has a lot to do with conflict. Your original post in the thread attempted to make this statement, but it was very disjointed and failed to connect your "root cause theory" to the events of WW1. I tried to remedy that in my post and connect the dots.
We can trace the causes of the war and find many of them tied to underlying economic competition. Understanding those reasons and placing them into the context of the events during the leadup to WW1 does not require us to attempt to "solve for" these "root causes" to understand the conflict. Your goal here is obviously not to discuss the causes for WW1, but to discuss "your solution" for all of human conflict and need. As I've said before, not the thread and possibly not the right forum.
The reason Germany was boxed in in 1914 was the Kaiser's bellicosity. He ignored Bismarck's maxim that the key to a successful foreign policy was a good treaty with Russia. He surrounded himself with the most militaristic advisors, like Schlieffen. His proration to the German soldiers sent to repress the Boxer rebellion chilled the world.
He engaged in a naval buildup that challenged England. Even the most ignorant of leaders should have known its inevitable response: to meet the buildup and to ally with opponents to the challenger. He met a personal, in person appeal by King Edward with scorn.
England and Germany were related by blood. Wilhelm was in part raised in the Hanover (ne, Windsor) household. He managed to make an enemy out of a friend.
So in 1914, Germany found itself isolated, only Austria left as a friend. As a German general said, Germany was shackled to a corpse.
Other actors in the WWI leadup and ignition had parts, but only as bit players.
I do agree with this to a large extent with an honorable mention going to England. In the final hour, Wilhelm II looked to England and asked them what their response would be. They stated that they would remain neutral. This assurance of English neutrality is what made him feel empowered to move forward with the mobilization and action for war. Had England stood firm (eery how often we wish the English would have stood firm in the 20th century) the war might not have occurred as Wilhelm would have used his influence to restrain the "corpse".
How is it that we blame capitalism for WWI, when the most capitalist world power at the time (United States) didn't have any real interest in the war until Germany attacked a ship with American passengers on it?
Capitalism was not only practised by the USA, the British also practiced it and had the world's largest ever empire at the time. The failures of Capitalism clearly contributed to mass carnage in the 20th century. We have to ensure we change the current flawed version of capitalism to prevent such nonsense. We are on the way to WW3, unless we waken up and smell the coffee.
BTW, the Lusitania sinking was in 1915, a long time before the USA entered WW1.
eery how often we wish the English would have stood firm in the 20th century
Like in WW2 you mean?
British policy was to play against the dominant power on the Continent to have balance. No more.
My original post was clear enough - I just read it. They problem with you is that you see reds under the bed all the time.
Quote:
Understanding those reasons and placing them into the context of the events during the leadup to WW1 does not require us to attempt to "solve for" these "root causes" to understand the conflict.
It does. It clearly does, otherwise, you phaff about on the surface and we are liable to repeat the carnage of the past. WW1 did not happen because of a street corner shooting in Sarajevo.
Capitalism was not only practised by the USA, the British also practiced it and had the world's largest ever empire at the time. The failures of Capitalism clearly contributed to mass carnage in the 20th century. We have to ensure we change the current flawed version of capitalism to prevent such nonsense. We are on the way to WW3, unless we waken up and smell the coffee.
BTW, the Lusitania sinking was in 1915, a long time before the USA entered WW1.
They weren't failures...they were market corrections...
Quote:
Originally Posted by John-UK
Like in WW2 you mean?
British policy was to play against the dominant power on the Continent to have balance. No more.
My original post was clear enough - I just read it. They problem with you is that you see reds under the bed all the time.
I blame the French more for WW2, but yes. I know Chamberlain did what he felt was best for the British at that moment and worked to buy time, but any real opposition to Hitler from the re-militarization of the Rhineland on to the invasion of Poland would have stopped Hitler in his tracks.
I don't see Reds under the bed. I understood what you wrote, but you failed miserably at tieing your statements together into something cohesive and on topic.
What I question is the appropriateness of your desire to debate your economic views in the history forum. You are basically now using topics as a form of cover so you can prosthletyze about your economic views.
Quote:
It does. It clearly does, otherwise, you phaff about on the surface and we are liable to repeat the carnage of the past. WW1 did not happen because of a street corner shooting in Sarajevo.
No it did not, but studying the reasons does not require us to delve into alternate economic theory. Essentially what I am telling you is that statements of your economic beliefs that you are intertwining in these threads have no place on this forum. At least in my opinion.
They weren't failures...they were market corrections...
Oh no!
Quote:
I blame the French more for WW2, but yes. I know Chamberlain did what he felt was best for the British at that moment and worked to buy time,
In 1938 the Royal Navy was on full alert as was the French and Soviet armies. If the Germans went into Czechoslovakia in 1938, they would be fighting, French, British, Czech, Soviet and most probably Polish forces, "all at once", on two fronts. It was diplomatically put to Hitler that if he wanted war he had it. Hitler backed down. Chamberlain and France inexplicably gave the Sudetenland to the Germans. They gave away a part of someone else's country. That is not the common view of Munich in 1938.
Adam Tooze: Wages of Destruction:
Page 273 "If Hitler had wanted war on 1 October 1938, he could have had it. The French and British had reached the point at which they could make no further concessions. The armies of France and the Soviet Union had mobilized. The Royal Navy stood at full alert. On 9 September 1938 it was Hitler who stepped back not his opponents"
Page 274
"Hitler backed down and accepted the extraordinarily generous settlement on offer at the hastily convened conference in Munich. In so doing, he almost certainly saved his regime from disaster."
In 1938 the Royal Navy was on full alert as was the French and Soviet armies. If the Germans went into Czechoslovakia in 1938, they would be fighting, French, British, Czech, Soviet and most probably Polish forces, "all at once", on two fronts. It was diplomatically put to Hitler that if he wanted war he had it. Hitler backed down. Chamberlain and France inexplicably gave the Sudetenland to the Germans. They gave away a part of someone else's country. That is not the common view of Munich in 1938.
Adam Tooze: Wages of Destruction:
Page 273 "If Hitler had wanted war on 1 October 1938, he could have had it. The French and British had reached the point at which they could make no further concessions. The armies of France and the Soviet Union had mobilized. The Royal Navy stood at full alert. On 9 September 1938 it was Hitler who stepped back not his opponents"
Page 274
"Hitler backed down and accepted the extraordinarily generous settlement on offer at the hastily convened conference in Munich. In so doing, he almost certainly saved his regime from disaster."
LAURENCE REES: So you would answer the question 'why did the war happen?' with the answer that 'Hitler always intended the war to happen'?
ADAM TOOZE: Yes, absolutely. In my view even in 1939 he’s steering towards the outbreak of an armed conflict in quite an open eyed way. In fact, he’s obviously slightly disappointed that they didn’t come to blows over Czechoslovakia on the 1st of October 1938 and he regrets in retrospect that he didn’t take the risk of actually using armed force without the co-operation of the British and the French.
Absent French and British co-operation to resolve the Sudeten crisis, Hitler would have been driven to use force to take what he wanted. Powerful elements within the German military (who were ready to get rid of Hitler over the Rhineland if the allies pushed back) were ready to act to remove Hitler if he launched an invasion of the Sudetenland and the allies moved against Germany.
Like in WW2 you mean?
British policy was to play against the dominant power on the Continent to have balance. No more.
My original post was clear enough - I just read it. They problem with you is that you see reds under the bed all the time.
It does. It clearly does, otherwise, you phaff about on the surface and we are liable to repeat the carnage of the past. WW1 did not happen because of a street corner shooting in Sarajevo.
Neither Russia or Austria where capitalist WWI happened because of the breakdown of the 100 year grip of old European Aristocracies tenuously held up by the Vienna conference rules. It broke it 1914, it was inevitable but who broke it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
