The
Lost History of 1914: How the Great War Was Not Inevitable, by Jack Beatty.
Jack Beatty examines the internal political situation in each
of the major belligerent countries of the Great War, offering evidence that the
war was not inevitable as any one of a number of other events held the
potential to derail one or more of the belligerents from engaging in this most
destructive war.
He first examines Germany.
The German Confederation (Deutscher
Bund) was a loose league of 39 sovereign states, founded at the Congress of
Vienna in 1814 after Napoleon’s fall.
The further consolidation came in the wake of several wars beginning in
1864 and culminating in 1871, under King Wilhelm I. These campaigns…
…forged Imperial Germany (1871 –
1918) from four kingdoms, six grand duchies, seven principalities, three free
cities, and two imperial provinces.
Germany went from a relatively decentralized society into a
militarized and very centralized society.
Beatty explains the militarization of German society – in
his view not nearly as militarized as the United States is today despite being
protected only by rivers and not by vast oceans. After all: it was France and its ally Russia
joined together that surrounded Germany and its ally Austria-Hungary, and not
the other way around.
With sound reason George F. Kennan,
the American diplomat and historian, traced the fuse of the war behind Prussian
militarism to its geostrategic justification – the Franco-Russian military
alliance of the early 1890s.
Despite the obvious need for a strong land-based military,
Germany diverted significant resources to the navy (the Tirpitz Plan), “a fatal
enthusiasm of the German emperor” (Wilhelm II), according to Beatty. This left the army relatively weaker and
simultaneously antagonized Britain – neither a good outcome.
As to the relatively weakened army, following the German
retreat from the River Marne east of Paris, General von Falkenhayn “exploded at
Tirpitz”:
“If we did not have the Navy, we
would have had two more army corps and would not have lost the Marne
battle!” He was undoubtedly right…. In
losing that battle, Falkenhayn told a Reichstag deputy, Germany had lost the
war.
Driven partly, at least, by this build-up of a German navy, Britain
– a sea power and dependent on oceanic trade – would be driven to alliance with
France and Russia against Germany. In the
meantime, during the war Germany’s fleet either ran from the British or spent
time collecting rust in port.
Several preludes to war can be found in the German
story. The annexation of Alsace-Lorraine
(a region in regular dispute since the days of Lothar, Charlemagne’s grandson)
by Germany in 1871 is one; the challenge to Britain’s naval superiority is
another; a third can be found in Russia’s Balkan rivalry with Austria (backed
by Germany’s blank check to Austria regarding attacking Serbia in retaliation
for the assassination of the Austrian archduke, Franz Ferdinand).
The most interesting observation, however, regards Germany’s
internal situation – one that made war desirable as a means to pull together
disparate groups within the country. Beatty
spends considerable time reviewing the Zabern Affair, a series
of incidents in Zabern in the aforementioned and forever-disputed Alsace-Lorraine. It was a test of wills: on the one side, the
military as supreme no matter the issue or cause; on the other, free speech and
peaceful protest.
Although this event was in one corner of the empire, it
raised the voices of and otherwise united the opposition throughout Germany –
especially Social Democrats. They gained
power in the Reichstag – with Bismarck writing “These questions – like that of
Social Democracy and that of the relationship between Parliament and the
separate states – will not be solved without a blood-bath, just as the question
of German unity was not.”
When a Conservative deputy, Elard
von Oldenburg-Januschau, declared, “The King of Prussia and the German Emperor
must always be in a position to say to any lieutenant: ‘Take ten men and shoot
the Reichstag!’” his fellow Conservatives in the Reichstag gave him a standing
ovation.
If this is not enough to demonstrate the internal situation,
how about this – from the Kaiser?
“Because of our Social Democrats we
cannot send a single man out of the country without running the gravest risk to
the life and property of the citizenry.
First the socialists must be gunned down, decapitated and rendered
harmless, in a blood-bath if necessary, and then war abroad!”
The military as supreme.
War used to expand empire and subdue internal enemies. This was the German story leading up to the
war.
Great post. The militarization of Europe leading up to WWI certainly didn't go unnoticed. My favorite author, Leo Tolstoy, even foresaw it. In "The Kingdom of God is Within You" (first published in 1894 in, of all places, Germany) Tolstoy notes the militarization by quoting an Italian named Enrico Ferri:
ReplyDelete"Modern Europe keeps under arms an active army of nine millions of men, besides fifteen millions of reserve, with an outlay of four hundred millions of francs per annum. By continual increase of the armed force, the sources of social and individual prosperity are paralyzed, and the state of the modern world may be compared to that of a man who condemns himself to wasting from lack of nutrition in order to provide himself with arms, losing thereby the strength to use the arms he provides, under the weight of which he will at last succumb."
Tolstoy goes on to address his fellow Russians:
"We, who have a simple love for men of foreign nationalities, Frenchmen, Germans, Americans, and Englishmen, who respect their qualities, are glad to meet them and make them so warmly welcome, cannot regard war with them as anything heroic. We cannot even imagine without horror the possibility of a disagreement between these people and ourselves which would call for reciprocal murder. Yet we are all bound to take a hand in this slaughter which is bound to come to pass."
He finishes with this (wonderfully libertarian) sentiment:
"AND WHAT IS MOST BEWILDERING IS THAT THE PEOPLE DO NOT RISE AGAINST THEIR GOVERNMENTS. FOR WHAT DIFFERENCE IS THERE BETWEEN MONARCHIES AND REPUBLICS? THE MOST BEWILDERING THING IS THAT THE WHOLE OF SOCIETY IS NOT IN REVOLT AT THE WORD WAR."
If the people would spend 5% of their energy against the political leaders who send them to war (in a peaceful manner) as they spend fighting wars against others (strangers, who never did them no harm) and cheering on their so-called warriors, this would virtually all come to an end.
Delete“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke.
DeleteYou know it's a good site when the comments are as good as the articles.
ReplyDeleteI second that.
Delete