1912/2012 and Sherlock Holmes

[W8taminute]

Over the weekend I watched the movie Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows with Robert Downy Jr.  What a great movie but that's not why I'm starting this thread.  Not sure if this topic should belong in history so I just stuck it here and hope the mods will correct me if necessary.


Now.


As I was watching the movie which as far as I could tell did a pretty decent job simulating life in Europe prior to the outbreak of WW1.  Europe was a collection of monarchies and classes that were divided up between the really rich and the really poor and not much in between.  Europe was on the verge of exploding into war resulting from colonial desires and power.  The end of one era was at hand and the beginning of a new era was close.

Fast forward to today and the problems we face in society: bad economy, outrageous violence, lack of morals or the sense of right and wrong, and finally world politics.

I remember growing up that the world was a lot different than it is today.  I'm not going to argue about is today better than yesterday but what I am going to state is that I feel we are on the verge of a transformation much like Europe was just prior to the outbreak of the First World War. 

[Barthheart]

Hopefully not as violent.....  :-\

[LongBlade]

I used to be a docent at the WWII museum, and I never felt I had too much trouble explaining the ramp up to WWII.

With WWI I always felt I struggled to explain it to my kids - and myself.

Not too far from where I grew up is the National WWI Museum in Kansas City. I visited that museum several times and *still* struggled to explain WWI to myself.

The last time I was there I sat down during the introductory film and decided to *listen*. Before it had sounded familiar and kinda rolled over me without sticking. So I was determined to make sure I understood the "party line."

Know what I found?

In the intro film presented by our National World War One Museum (<- N.B. proper noun) they listed about eight causes. Then the narrator paused to state (and I paraphrase) "...in the end nobody really knows what caused it."

The causes can be found listed in a history book (and this won't be a complete list): nationalism, industrialization, a rising sense of ethnic pride, dislocation of workers due to industrialization, crazy-quilt treaties linking various nations trying to keep Europe "in balance" ...etc.

.....

I cannot promise we won't see another WWI break out in Europe, but I don't think we're in the same spot. Europe is somewhat fitfull, but the problems are more likely to come from its unassimilated Muslim population than from any likelihood that Serbia will take out the Austro-Hungarian heir.

Was it George Santayana who said "history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme" ?

[Senex]

^
Was it George Santayana who said "history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme" ?

Nope, it was Mark Twain.  Santayana said that those who don't remember history are condemned to repeat it.


Good capsule summary of the causes of WWI.  I would add to the list the phenomenon of rulers with 18th Century minds trying to use 19th Century solutions on 20th Century problems.

[bayonetbrant]

Santayana also said that history is a pile of lies told by people who weren't there.

[Staggerwing]

I had a teacher a while ago who said that WW1 was the result of a gigantic clusterfuck (pardon the expression). I've always thought of it as resulting from the pride of inbred and insecure Monarchs, ambitious Politicians not living long enough to control their machinations' endgames, egotistical Generals who lacked critical thinking skills, and some really bad timing.

[LongBlade]

I had a teacher a while ago who said that WW1 was the result of a gigantic clusterfuck (pardon the expression). I've always thought of it as resulting from the pride of inbred and insecure Monarchs, ambitious Politicians not living long enough to control their machinations' endgames, egotistical Generals who lacked critical thinking skills, and some really bad timing.

More or less. Societal factors also played a role - the massive armies couldn't have been manned or equipped without nationalism and industrialization. There are about eight factors which can be woven into the mix. All of them were necessary, none by themselves were sufficient.

[Gusington]

Great thread. WWI is my bread and butter. Another cause of the war IMHO was the mobilization factor and the belief that, once started, mobilization led directly to conflict and combat.

The world today is vastly different but I too have to wonder if we are on the edge of some precipice.

We were ten years ago and that was a technological one as we entered the information age. What's next? Who knows. But I hope it's not the West fighting a resurgent 'caliphate' of some kind.

It might sound far fetched but take a good look at the Middle East right now, along with the surge in power of the Muslim Brotherhood...and it doesn't look that odd anymore.

[W8taminute]

Great thread. WWI is my bread and butter. Another cause of the war IMHO was the mobilization factor and the belief that, once started, mobilization led directly to conflict and combat.

The world today is vastly different but I too have to wonder if we are on the edge of some precipice.

We were ten years ago and that was a technological one as we entered the information age. What's next? Who knows. But I hope it's not the West fighting a resurgent 'caliphate' of some kind.

It might sound far fetched but take a good look at the Middle East right now, along with the surge in power of the Muslim Brotherhood...and it doesn't look that odd anymore.

Yep, that's what I'm thinking.  It really does seem that there will be a 'caliphate' of some kind that is going to cause a lot of trouble.  Do we need to start looking for the blue turbaned man mentioned by Nostradamus?

[undercovergeek]

i dont know whether its here or at WG but didnt someone have a sig line from a german politician alluding to the fact that they had come too far now and so war had to happen? as opposed to, you know, just not declaring war

[W8taminute]

^Yes I've heard that line somewhere too.  It may have been mentioned in Barbara Tuchman's "Guns of August" which is a great read about the events leading up to and after the outbreak.

[Airborne Rifles]

Yes, I remember reading in The Guns of August that once the armies mobilized the countries involved had to either go to war or demobilize as it was too expensive to maintain the fully mobilized armies.  France was unwilling to back down because of the lasting humiliation from the Franco-Prussian war and Germany was unwilling to back down and admit their loss of dominace over France which they had maintained since the Franco-Prussian war.

[besilarius]

The factor that always grabbed me at the start of WW1, was the effect of Kaiser Bill appointing the Younger von Moltke to be Chief of the General Staff.
It wasn't that Moltke was so good, or so hard working, it was that Bill thought it auspicious to have a von Moltke leading his armed forces.
Now, not only did Moltke lose control of the advance into France, but earlier when on the verge of war, Bill had second thoughts.
Remember he was very militaristic and deeply into his army.  He, at the very last minute, asked if there was a plan for mobilising against Russia, instead of von Schlieffen's plan against France.
As supreme warlord, Bill should have known this, but it is indicative of his cavalier style of leadership.
Moltke proved he was not up to the job.  The thought of stopping the trains sending all the army into position to invade France, was too much.  He lied that no such plan had ever been made.
Hereditary monarchy is no excuse for letting bozos into position of authority.

[Gusington]

Franco-German animosity may seem quaint and cliche now, but I agree with Airborne Rifles above that it was a huge reason for the launching of WWI. Without that rivalry, war could have been avoided, potentially.