Discussion 11

Reading: Art Mormorstein's "The Great War"

 

With each century we've talked about in this course, I've

had a general theme. The 16th and 17th centuries: a time of

particularly rapid change. The 18th century: the age of

reason. The 19th century: the age of progress. For the 20th

century, there are lots of possible themes, but perhaps the

single most striking characteristic of the 20th century was

that it was an age of violence--much of it senseless

violence. A good example of this, World War I.

World War I, as the name implies, was a war that involved

much of the world. It was, however, primarily a European

war, and it was the Europeans who started it. How did this

happen? How did the best educated, most civilized people in

the history of mankind start one of the most terrible, most

senseless wars in history?

Now, often enough, people want to blame Germany for both

World War I and World War II. It's wrong, though, to view the

Germans as the sole people responsible for these disasters.

Nevertheless, it is easiest to understand World War I and its

causes as a result of a series of German mistakes.

Germany did not become a nation until after the France

Prussian war of 1870. Once Germany did unify, however, it

was time for the rest of the world to look out. Germany was

soon a leader in vaccines, in chemistry, and in all sorts of

other areas. It was rapidly catching Britain as a leading

industrial power. However, because Germany unified so late,

it missed out on much of the European scramble for colonies

around the world. Having colonies seemed critical to an

industrialized society. Such colonies guaranteed access to

key industrial materials, and guaranteed markets for

manufactured goods. France, Britain, and even little

European countries like Belgium and Portugal had colonies

throughout the world. The German attitude was that, if there

was any part of the world *not* already claimed by another

European country, which should be theirs: they didn't yet

have their fair share of colonies. German belligerence ended

up alienating many other countries, and, by 1914, Germany

had only one reliable ally left in Europe: Austria.

German aggression, then, did in part creating the tensions

that led to World War I. But playing an even bigger role,

German fear of aggression.

Germany, for instance, was afraid that Britain might decide

to side with Germany's enemies. Was this likely? Well, not

really. The English speaking peoples and the German

speaking peoples were natural allies, sharing a common

historic enemy in France. But Germany wanted to make sure

Britain never attacked them, and so they created a strategy

based on the "Risk Theory." The Risk Theory was the idea

that, if Germany built a big battle fleet, Britain couldn't

afford to ever attack them. The British might wind, but they

would lose so many ships that their world-wide empire

would be endangered. So Germany builds its battle fleet.

But when Britain learns of this, it makes the British mad--

and makes them more likely to attack Germany! What could

be more senseless than to adopt an idea to *prevent* war

with another nation that actually makes war with that nation

more likely?

While the Germans worried somewhat about Britain, they

were far more concerned about two other potential

enemies, France and Russia. The Germans were certain that

they could lick France alone, and they were pretty sure they

could defeat the Russians. The nightmare, however, was the

two-front war, having to deal with the French in the West

and the Russians in the East at the same time.

The Germans came up with a plan for the two-front war: the

Schlieffen Plan. Basically, this plan said that, in the event of

war, Germany would begin by attacking France with all its

might, trying to knock France out of the war quickly. Then

the Germans would shift all their men and material to the

eastern front to deal with the more serious threat posed by

Russia. The Germans thought they'd do OK with this plan.

Russia, while formidable, was a vast country, slow to

mobilize. While the Russians were getting their act together,

the Germans were sure they'd have time to put France out

of business.

Two problems, though. First of all, the Schlieffen Plan

depended on speed, and the German/French border is not

built for speed: mountain country. So--an easier route: right

through Belgium. The Germans don't seem to have thought

this a problem. Why would the Belgians not let the Germans

march right through the country? Also, the Schlieffen plan

was the only plan the Germans made. They adopted the

plan in 1905, never revised it, and never made any other

plan. All of this meant that Europe was a powder keg waiting

to explode.

The spark came in a region of Europe known as the Balkans.

For a long time, the Balkans had been part of the Ottoman

Turkish Empire. The "Sick Man of Europe" was still around at

this point, but nearing death, and the great question, as

always: what would become of the territories of the empire

once collapse was complete?

Some would have thought it made no difference. Otto von

Bismarck has said that the whole of the Balkans wasn't

worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier. But

others felt differently. Various national groups in the Balkans

wanted independence. Austria wanted parts of the Balkans

for their own empire. The Turks likewise wanted to hold on

to as much territory as they could.

Little by little, some of the nationalist groups got their way.

Slavs, for instance, managed to create the nation of Serbia,

while the Bulgars created Bulgaria. But Austria too took

some of what it wanted: Bosnia and Herzegovina, for

instance. This was territory with a large slavic population,

the Serbs thought it ought to be theirs instead of Austria's.

But Serbia was no match militarily for Austria, so the Serbs

resorted to terrorism. Groups like the Black Hand used

bombing and assassination to destabilize the region and

drive Austria out. The terror campaign reached its height

when a Serbian-backed terrorist assassinated Franz

Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian throne, and his wife.

The Austrians were furious, and it's not too surprising that

such an event would lead to war between Austria and

Serbia. But what happens next? Austria would have won

easily against Serbia alone. But the Russians, big brothers to

all other Slavs, would certainly come to Serbia's aid. And

then the shoe would be on the other foot: Austria would get

crushed. But Germany could not stand by and see their only

ally defeated, so the Germans stepped in to help the

Austrians. However, the Germans had only one plan for war:

the Schlieffen plan. Attack France first! And, to get there in a

hurry, go through Belgium. German invasion of Belgium

brought Britain into the war as well. In 1915, Bulgaria joined

the war on the side of the "Central Powers" (Germany,

Austria, and Turkey), while Italy joined on the side of the

allied powers (Britain, France, Russia, and Serbia). Because

these nations had colonies all over the world, they drew on

the resources of those colonies, and we ended up with a

conflict that affected and involved much of the world--all

stemming from one assassination in the Balkans!

As it turned out, the Schlieffen Plan didn't quite work. The

Belgian King said, "Belgium is a country, not a highway,"

and the Belgians, while they couldn't stop Germany, slowed

the German forces down just long enough that France and

Britain could stop the German invasion. The Germans got to

within 50 miles of Paris, but there the attack stopped. What

now?

Well, the Germans improvised, digging themselves into

trenches, putting up barbed wire, and trying to hold on to

what they had already taken. The British and French on the

other side did the same thing, digging trenches and putting

up defenses designed to stop any potential German

advance.

This led to four bloody years of trench warfare, with neither

side able to make progress, and both sides losing thousands

of men. The twin battles of Verdun and the Somme, for

instance, cost the lives of 1,000,000 men--and all that

happened was the exchange of a few miles of territory.

Nothing--not poison gas, not airplanes--could break the

stalemate of the trenches. And yet instead of making peace,

the diplomats back home just let the war drag on and on

while a whole generation of young men was lost.

Even more senseless, what happened in Armenia.

While we generally seem to focus on the Western Front in

World War I, fighting along the Eastern Front was, if

anything, worse. The Russians alone lost eight million men

killed, captured, or wounded. Finally, torn apart by

Revolution at home, the Russians gave up. Lenin, the

Communist dictator who in November seized control of

Russia, basically surrendered unconditionally, signing the

treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This treaty let the Germans annex

territory that included prime agricultural land and many of

Russia's most important industrial resources.

This was a huge shot-in-the arm for Germany. All sorts of

extra food to feed their soldiers and civilians. All sorts of iron

and coal, raw materials badly needed for the war effort.

And, in addition, Germany no longer had to worry about the

two-front war. The Schlieffen Plan had almost worked in

reverse: Russia was out of the war, and now Germany could

concentrate all its efforts on the Western front. Essentially,

Germany had won the war: the Germans could have

arranged peace terms favorable to Germany. But instead of

negotiating, the Germans fought on. Why? Because they

had been fighting the war with no military or political

objectives. The difficulty of fighting without objectives is

that you don't know what you are fighting for, and so there

is really no way to tell when you have won! And Germany

continues to fight a "won" war until, eventually, the war is

no longer won.

Ultimately, 1918 was a disaster for the Germans, largely

because of American entry into the war.

Now for quite a long time, America avoided entry into the

war. George Washington had warned the US against

becoming entangled in European wars, and for 150 years

the US had followed Washington’s advice. Woodrow Wilson

(first elected in 1912) and his Secretary of State Bryan were

committed to this “non-entanglement” tradition, trying to

keep us from getting involved.

But it wasn’t easy. As the war raged in Europe, tremendous

trade opportunities were available to American businesses,

and American businessmen took advantage of this.

Germany had resorted to U-boat warfare to try to block

supplies from getting to Britain. They warned us that

anyone sailing on a British ship was subject to attack, but

Americans continued to travel on British ships anyway.

In 1915, the Germans sunk the Lusitania, killing 1,198

people including 128 Americans. This didn’t play well with

the American public. On top of that, the British-controlled

transatlantic cable was transmitting information designed to

make us sympathize with their side and be outraged by

German atrocities.

Still, Wilson held the line, and, when he ran for reelection in

1916, he made that a key point in his campaign. His

Republican opponent Charles Evans Hughes (called Charles

Evasive Hughes by his detractors) didn’t make clear where

he stood on US entry into the war. The Wilson campaign,

however, made much of Wilson’s success in avoiding

American involvement. “He kept us out of war” was a

featured slogan. One campaign ad: “You are working, not

fighting; alive and happy, not cannon fodder; Wilson and

peace with honor, or Hughes with Roosevelt and war?”

Well, Wilson won reelection, but in a close vote: 277 to 254

in the Electoral College. The American people had chosen

Wilson, at least partly on the implied promise we were *not*

going to enter the war.

But there were soon problems with this policy. The papers

played up the Zimmerman Note, an intercepted German

message to Mexico that said that, in the event of American

entry into the war, Mexico should attack the United States.

At the end of the war, the Germans would repay them by

getting back for them Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

On top of that, the Germans were sinking American ships

taking supplies to Britain. Anti-German sentiment increased,

and Wilson decided we had to go to war.

But if he was going to break his implied campaign promise,

Wilson better give the American people good reasons for

doing so. He did.

1. This would be a “war to end all wars.”

2. This would be a war to “make the world safe for

democracy.”

Good goals—but more than goals. Wilson was determined

that the war would be a “progressive” war, one that did in

fact lead to a more peaceful world and that did in fact lead

to free and democratic societies.

Wilson suggested a way of settling the war that might have

done just that, his “Fourteen Points,” Wilson’s plan for

resolving European (and world-wide) problems after the

fighting was done.

Wilson’s points included:

1. Open covenants (no secret diplomacy)

2. Freedom of the seas

3. The removal of economic barriers

4. The reduction of national armaments “to the lowest point

consistent with safety”

5. The impartial adjustment of colonial claims

6. The evacuation of Russia by foreign armies

7. Belgian independence

8. The Alsace-Lorraine area restored to France

9. Adjustment of the Italian frontier

10. Autonomy for the peoples of Austria-Hungary

11. The restoration of Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro

12. Autonomy for Turkey

13. An independent Poland

14. The creation of a League of Nations

Now these ideas reflect a pretty solid understanding of the

causes of WWI and a pretty sound recipe for an amicable

peace. American entry into the war *did* turn the tables in

Europe leading to the defeat of Germany, and our

contributions *should* have meant that we would have an

important voice in how the war was actually settled,

*especially* since the Germans surrendered under the belief

they would be treated in accord with the generous terms

promised by Wilson.

But what actually happened is that, after the war was over,

the British, and even more the French, insisted on much

harsher terms for Germany—and Wilson gave in. Why? He

sacrificed most of his goals to achieve the one goal he

thought most important, the creation of the League of

Nations. The Versailles Treaty that actually ended the war

(June 28, 1919) stripped Germany of the Saar Basin and the

Danzig region, reduced the German army to 100,000 men,

forbid German fortifications on their border with France—

and imposed on German an indemnity of more than $30

billion to pay for the war. But Wilson had got his League of

Nations—sort of. And World War I was a victory overall for

the good guys—sort of.

But it did not do what Wilson promised. Instead, World War I

led directly and indirectly into the creation of some of the

most tyrannical regimes the world has ever seen, and--just

20 years later--to another world war--this time, on an even

larger scale.

 

Art Marmorstein