You ask: 'Why did the great nations of Europe—enjoying the greatest period of peace and prosperity in history (the “Belle Epoque” of 1871 to 1914)—made the strange decision to wage the First World War, thereby killing approximately 20 million young men?"
The people of the great nations didn't chose WWI. It was a way for the sociopathic 0.1% to make even more money and gain even more power.
Although... in the run-up to the start of WW1 the people of Britain, almost without exception, became more and more hostile to Germany. That was true of everyone from the royal family - who were Kaiser Wilhelm's cousins - to the lowliest worker.
Bertrand Russell and his wife were principled pacifists who believed - quite rightly - that hardly anything could be as terrible as war, and that therefore it must be avoided at all costs. A week before the declaration of war, most of their friends and acquaintances agreed with them. The day after the declaration of war, they had hardly a single friend left. Everyone was hysterically in favour of war and against Germany.
Mutatis mutandis, similar feelings prevailed in most countries. The British believed they still had the greatest empire the world had ever seen, and so they were top dogs. They couldn't tolerate the Germans challenging their supremacy.
The Germans necessarily worshipped their army. Without it, even little Prussia would not have survived until 1800. Prussia would not have defeated Austria and France, after they declared war on it. The German nation would never have existed. Of course most Germans looked up in awe and gratitude to their soldiers. And, of course, because they had never been conclusively defeated, they believed they never would be.
The Austrians still believed that they had the greatest European empire ever, although it was a patchwork of different peoples and languages. They felt brotherhood with the Germans, although they still looked down on them as upstarts. They could not tolerate the insolence of Serbia or the threats of Russia.
The French had had the greatest European empire in the time of Napoleon, and still felt that they deserved to be top dogs. But they had been decisively crushed by the Prussians in 1870. They desperately wanted revenge, and would stoop to any tricks to get it.
Even the Italians, whose nation was brand new, looked back to imperial Rome without willing the sacrifices required to win wars.
The Russians had been tricked and deceived by the British, the French, and the Turks - they still remembered the Crimean War - and believed it was their right to rule the Balkans and keep the Turks out of Europe. Now they were threatened by Germany and Austria, so they felt they had to mobilise their enormous army which would take months to come together.
Everyone had a reason to fear and resent their potential enemies. Everyone thought that, if war came, they would be sure to win - perhaps by Christmas. And, of course, hardly anyone had the slightest idea of how awful war would be.
Lauren, there is evidence of this in a private communication from the former Austria-Hungary finance minister, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk to Ludwig von Mises.
Bohm-Bawerk told Mises in confidentiality that the reason not to go onto the Gold Standard was because sociopathic politicians had created a dark money fund at the Austro-Hungarian Bank before 1900, in order to run black ops and to propagandize people and remain in power. It was feared that going onto the Gold Standard would expose these sociopaths.
It is certainly comforting to adopt the notion that governments no longer do this to people.
[ Mises on Monetary and Economic Problems Before, During, and After WW1 ]
It seems to me we aren't really looking at history through the modern lens if we simply ascribe the roots of war to profiteering. It seems to me that the left is currently trying to drag the entire world into war for a few interconnected reasons. After all, getting nations to go to war isn't so easy and it takes a lot of synergistic forces coming together to get a war off the ground.
In the USA and the rest of the west, the industrialists have brought in millions of modern-day wage slaves because driving down labor costs is one of the sure-fire ways to boost profits. This creates domestic chaos. This chaos is then mis-reported and blame reassigned to the indigenous populations by the industrialists' friends (and vendors of information) in the media. This batch of apparatchiks provide cover for massive fraud throughout public and private industry. The fraudsters then do anything they can to stay in power to prevent being brought to justice including manufacturing plagues and rigging elections. The chaos circle continues until people are so angry they are willing to vent that anger in a direction controlled by the government (they hope).
I suspect that some flavor of this recipe has existed in most major conflicts throughout history.
Yes, Ruth, it's not just profit, it's the sociopathic craving to control vast populations. I suspect that, regardless of political affiliation, the extremely sophisticated PR experts of the Deep State have figured out exactly how to trigger the kind of indignation that leads to "justified" wars, including the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs. And it's not just influencing the news, but owning electeds and controlling government agencies, and creating news from thin air like having the CIA start "revolutions" in other countries, etc. But the profit motive is still there. When the invisible uni-party finds ways to control the populace, they make the federal government pay (that would be our tax dollars or big loans our grandkids will be stuck with) for big projects etc. Then the profits roll in for the 0.1%, no matter who's "in charge."
Bored? Most leaders wage war because they're evil. They have no sense of real meaning in their lives, and thrive on the feelings of power that come from controlling and hurting others. They feed off of the strife and pain they cause-- that's their energy source.
Bill Gates has, among other things, waged war against little children, injecting them with a serpent's fang; supposedly to 'save' them, studies have shown that the African children vaccinated though the efforts of Gate's GAVI may have experienced less of the target disease, but died at higher rates than the children not injected. The word "unvaccinated" makes no sense, as the injection of a mixture of foreign substances into the body cannot be undone.) - Video clips from decades ago show Billy talking about controlling population though vaccination. The segments in which he talks about 'thrusting the needle in and injecting the vaccine into their bloodstream' are downright creepy. Even without revelations of Epstein adjacent activity.... Gates is a thoroughly untrustworthy figure, reminiscent of a parasite.
Well, John Leake, you are again, right on the money. I identify with your Grandfather, in that I desire the elusive, boring life, and savor the quiet, thanking God for the lack of drama... It is when my own life is most appreciated. I've had too much excitement for one lifetime already, and I have along way to go yet. Unfortunately, peace and prosperity must be fought for and defended at all cost. So much for the boring, peaceful life. Freedom is not free. I am grateful for those who fought before me, and taught us that ignoring the fight is not affordable, BECAUSE EVIL NEVER RESTS. Complacency and apathy are deadly sins.
They thought the war would be short, sort things out on borders and who owned or controlled this and that. . Few people killed, lots of parades and medals afterwards and that would be about it. They forgot, or didn't pay attention to the American Civil War, which also started with that illusion on both sides. The South certainly thought the war would be easily won and it seemed at first that they would be correct. At first things seem to be going smoothly. Can you say Blitzkrieg? Illusions like that persist usually by initial success. See Vietnam, see Iraq, etc, and so forth. They thought in terms of Gunboat Diplomacy, conflicts in faraway places like Africa (The Thin Red Line) or Asia (The French Foreign Legion) Or the Opium Wars, etc. You read about it in the papers weeks or month later, rather than long drawn out slogs close to home. The thinking of the day was as in the poem The Modern Traveler: We have the Maxim Gun and they have not. But in this case both sides had the Maxim Gun.
Or to put it another way: Everything looks good on paper.
The average person does not usually want war, which is why governments allow events like Pearle Harbor, 9-11, and October 7 to happen. The question is why do governments want war? I think the answer is more about money and power than about boredom.
John Charmley in Churchill: The End of Glory recounts a story of Young British men headed off to WW I. When interviewed, to a man, all believed the government was lying about reasons for war but went without questioning. Author could not explain that information.
Is this why grunts are looked at as "cannon fodder"?
Self respect gone? Just looking for adventure?
But how one thinks of and treats an "enemy" will be how your own government will end up treating you.
Robert Graves' "Goodbye to All That" is worth reading from that point of view. He somehow survived the whole war, having gone to the Western Front straight from school. He wrote that soldiers - British, French, or German - felt no kinship with the civilians back home, but related more to the "enemy" soldiers who were in the same boat. The survivors never told their families and friends what it had been like.
Graves wrote that he and all the soldiers he knew were motivated above all by regimental pride and loyalty. Neither king, country nor religion meant much to them at all; but they could not let the regiment down. He quoted with approval the lines of his fellow soldier:
I have never been able to penetrate the high thorn fence of mathematical formulae and abstruse verbiage that economists have thrown up around their bunkers. But it makes sense to me that currency based on precious metals avoids inflation, which is the financial equivalent of the Black Death.
Interesting piece. I have often thought of this idea in relation to wealthy trust fund babies I have encountered over the years. Many seem to seek out drugs, alcohol, fast driving in expensive cars, getting tossed out of prep schools and the like. It almost seemed to me they were trying to make trouble for themselves, to set up roadblocks. I felt maybe it was because their lives seemed too good, without enough challenges in a way.
Indeed, the cycles of human nature, especially that of our imperfect nature, are a curse on humanity.
A fascinating book: The War That Ended Peace by Margaret MacMillan, detailed events during the years leading up to World War I. Still, it failed to pinpoint the exact reason for the war, other than a series of events that culminated at the same time. One of those pre-war facts I found interesting was that key War rulers—King George V of Great Britain, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia—were all grandchildren of Queen Victoria. The incest of the Crown was so rampant that Queen Victoria was considered the grandmother of Europe.
The insanity of World War I may have been caused by the insanity caused by incest and a family feud.
Thanks John. Interesting psychological take on the progress of history. We agree the cycle of boredom and desire for the excitement is relevant but consider the politics of self interest also significant in both this psychological context and the context of ever changing events. Also differential intelligence and ability of the part of Kings ( and such like) ministers, wives, heirs, siblings and so on. Also, we better not leave out Gods and their acolytes and followers. Certainly peace does not seem to be something many humans habitually enjoy or profit from despite saying they do. One nice thing about history is that we not doomed to scientific orthodoxy, as we are with medicine these days, and are free to speculate as much as we like. Well almost.
Nature manhandles man into a sturdy, somber unit. Surviving this, these men of the earth rather relish "boredom". There's never a shortage of work to be done. Ever. But when there is, there's always fishing and hunting.
"When prosperity removes external threats, a large portion of the population—especially young people—seek stimulation in political extremism, bouts of social-media outrage, interpersonal melodrama, and an array of other self-created crises. Conflict becomes a substitute for purpose."
Kind of sounds like right now, right here, doesn't it?
I think he called you an armchair quarterback - "Conflict becomes a substitute for purpose," is something only a Cry Boomer would use to justify the status quo they'd like to maintain.
I consider Schopenhauer to be the godfather of existentialism, though you can trace "existentialist" habits of thought back to Heraclitus, who boldly proclaimed that one cannot step into the same river twice (because it was no longer the same river). But existentialist mindsets can lead to war.
It has been said that the nihilistic, anti-rational, and anti-beauty movement known as Dada-ism can be explained by World War I, but it has also been said that Dada-ism explains the war. Here is a pull-quote from Smithsonian Magazine online:
“Without World War I there is no Dada,” says Laurent Le Bon, the curator of the Pompidou Center’s show. “But there’s a French saying, ‘Dada explains the war more than the war explains Dada.’
When you let philosophy decay to the point where it was at the turn of the twentieth century -- thanks to thinkers like Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, and the dreaded Existentialists and irrationalists that got spawned by them -- then you will get a lot of young punks who have no direction in which to steer their life energy.
Such an inroad into philosophy, and therefore into culture, sets you up for conditions that are so poor that the only way that it was known to escape them is by engaging in war. As Ayn Rand said, ideas matter. As soon as a tipping point of bad ideas is crossed, society can become destined for a hard reset.
While the world on the surface looked pretty good in 1914, that was from the momentum created by ideas held long before by the better philosophers in humanity's history (e.g., Aristotle, Aquinas, Bacon, Spinoza).
I read where WWI was started because a German industrialist was pretty angry at having to share some of the wealth with the common population and was part of the plot that assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This triggered the business/diplomatic actions of WWI.
Please correct me if this is wrong.
I do feel that boredom sets in for most human beings in western culture because of a profound disconnection from the natural world. This alone gave rise to so many current ills & dis easement.
The word evil spelled backwards is live. Very few people understand what true aliveness is. Of course when one is truly alive, he or she cannot be controlled or needs to be controlled.
I've done a fair amount of study on the origins of WW1 and I've never read anything confirming the German industrialist narrative. After reading many books on the subject, I've come to same conclusion as many others, that the war really wasn't the fault of any one country....but if one must assign blame, it probably should be blamed on elements in the Serbian government, the intransigence of the Austro-Hungarian government, and Russia (who initiated a secret mobilization way before the public announcement thus forcing German mobilization when the Germans found out). The other major problem was communication. The telegraph was the primary means of government contact and messages passed each other while in transit and invariably got confused. Prewar writings from most of the major players which were analyzed much later showed that none of the major powers wanted war....the Kaiser and the Tzar were absolutely terrified......but it happened anyway.
I agree with everything you write - but I believe that Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, bears much of the responsibility. He took it upon himself, when war was imminent, to give the French government assurances that Britain would back them up ***whatever happened*** - and kept that secret from Parliament, the Cabinet, and even the PM. This encouraged the French in their insolent behaviour toward the Germans. They, in turn, were quite rightly afraid of having to fight a war on two fronts if attacked by France and Russia. So they decided to take France out of the war with another lightning victory, as in 1870.
Sorry if that came across as stroppy. I studied history at Cambridge and we read a good deal about the world wars. Of course a lot of the most important facts were concealed from us. I liked A. J. P. Taylor, but I never even heard the name of David Irving. We were given to believe that Hitler was responsible for WW2, and FDR's role in cynically planning it was never even hinted at. We were told that Pearl Harbor was a total surprise, and that while Churchill liked the odd drink it never - of course - affected his judgment, let alone his honour.
I read William Manchester's biography of Churchill a long time ago, and I remember him saying that Churchill always had some alcohol in his bloodstream, but that it was rarely enough to affect his judgement. I have no way of knowing how accurate that is, but I'd like to think that he wasn't crocked during the entire war.....
No, you're good. I just didn't have time to reply. Cambridge in 1967? You've got me beat. I'm a history major, but at the University of Maryland....certainly not Cambridge. However, it is a subject that seriously interests me and I've read quite a few books on the origins of the war. I agree about Grey, but I was really surprised to learn about Sasonov and Russias unpublicized "pre-mobilisation" (long before the German mobilization) which Sasonov denied to Germany, Britain and France. The German government even confirmed that the Russian mobilization was happening when they received posters from the Warsaw military district (which was facing Germany, not Austro-Hungary) announcing it. When presented with the evidence, no one in London or Paris believed any of it..... especially Grey and his subordinates. They simply thought that the Germans were lying, and they were in far too deep with the French to back out even if they wanted to . The result was the very public German mobilization, the Kaiser and Germany have been blamed for the war ever since.
I've never read anything about Sasonov and the secret Russian mobilization in any of the history books, even though the information has been available to historians for years. Instead of reading about this in a book, I actually heard about this on a podcast called "When Diplomacy Fails" by Zack Twamley, a young Irish historian who actually went back and researched the established narrative (and found some of its flaws and inaccuracies). Twamley said that he was surprised by the evidence, before doing the research he had generally accepted the established narrative (that Germany was responsible for the war). Now he doesn't think so.
It's amazing how hard it is for the truth to be accepted once a certain narrative is in place....no matter how flawed or untruthful that narrative is....
I think the connection you describe cannot have been of decisive importance. Many such events worked together, but it is true that many civilians were excited at the prospect of war. That may be true even today.
The reason for WWI is the same reason as all the other conflicts, divisions and hate of the last two thousand years. The problem is no one believes in the dark, corrupting supernatural forces that afflict men in power, although Scripture is very clear regarding their existence and the Old Testament is clear on which rulers were afflicted, such as King Saul. Satan doesn't want to control simply one person, it wants to control the one person who rules, thereby afflicting an entire nation. Read The War Against Humanity by Anonymous Patriot to understand, so that you're no longer in the dark regarding what should be obvious to anyone who fully understands the Bible. Christ didn't come only to die for our sins - He came to defeat Satan.
John Leake taps into the realm of the profound: "Conflict becomes a substitute for purpose."
In the conflict resolution protocol Divine Collaboration pre-convening steps often expose the dynamics that Leake so aptly highlights.
I'd never thought of the situation in precisely the pithy phrase Leake uses.
As one guides and motivates parties to articulate interests, considerable bric-a-brac goes by the wayside as parties recognize less-than-valid conflict drivers.
Pushed toward giving voice to their purpose (in the form of interests and needs) the conflict dissolves, sometimes with quite astounding speed. Conflict that substitutes for purpose folds up and peace is established by newly uncovered purpose.
You ask: 'Why did the great nations of Europe—enjoying the greatest period of peace and prosperity in history (the “Belle Epoque” of 1871 to 1914)—made the strange decision to wage the First World War, thereby killing approximately 20 million young men?"
The people of the great nations didn't chose WWI. It was a way for the sociopathic 0.1% to make even more money and gain even more power.
... Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. [Orwell]
Although... in the run-up to the start of WW1 the people of Britain, almost without exception, became more and more hostile to Germany. That was true of everyone from the royal family - who were Kaiser Wilhelm's cousins - to the lowliest worker.
Bertrand Russell and his wife were principled pacifists who believed - quite rightly - that hardly anything could be as terrible as war, and that therefore it must be avoided at all costs. A week before the declaration of war, most of their friends and acquaintances agreed with them. The day after the declaration of war, they had hardly a single friend left. Everyone was hysterically in favour of war and against Germany.
Mutatis mutandis, similar feelings prevailed in most countries. The British believed they still had the greatest empire the world had ever seen, and so they were top dogs. They couldn't tolerate the Germans challenging their supremacy.
The Germans necessarily worshipped their army. Without it, even little Prussia would not have survived until 1800. Prussia would not have defeated Austria and France, after they declared war on it. The German nation would never have existed. Of course most Germans looked up in awe and gratitude to their soldiers. And, of course, because they had never been conclusively defeated, they believed they never would be.
The Austrians still believed that they had the greatest European empire ever, although it was a patchwork of different peoples and languages. They felt brotherhood with the Germans, although they still looked down on them as upstarts. They could not tolerate the insolence of Serbia or the threats of Russia.
The French had had the greatest European empire in the time of Napoleon, and still felt that they deserved to be top dogs. But they had been decisively crushed by the Prussians in 1870. They desperately wanted revenge, and would stoop to any tricks to get it.
Even the Italians, whose nation was brand new, looked back to imperial Rome without willing the sacrifices required to win wars.
The Russians had been tricked and deceived by the British, the French, and the Turks - they still remembered the Crimean War - and believed it was their right to rule the Balkans and keep the Turks out of Europe. Now they were threatened by Germany and Austria, so they felt they had to mobilise their enormous army which would take months to come together.
Everyone had a reason to fear and resent their potential enemies. Everyone thought that, if war came, they would be sure to win - perhaps by Christmas. And, of course, hardly anyone had the slightest idea of how awful war would be.
Lauren, there is evidence of this in a private communication from the former Austria-Hungary finance minister, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk to Ludwig von Mises.
Bohm-Bawerk told Mises in confidentiality that the reason not to go onto the Gold Standard was because sociopathic politicians had created a dark money fund at the Austro-Hungarian Bank before 1900, in order to run black ops and to propagandize people and remain in power. It was feared that going onto the Gold Standard would expose these sociopaths.
It is certainly comforting to adopt the notion that governments no longer do this to people.
[ Mises on Monetary and Economic Problems Before, During, and After WW1 ]
It seems to me we aren't really looking at history through the modern lens if we simply ascribe the roots of war to profiteering. It seems to me that the left is currently trying to drag the entire world into war for a few interconnected reasons. After all, getting nations to go to war isn't so easy and it takes a lot of synergistic forces coming together to get a war off the ground.
In the USA and the rest of the west, the industrialists have brought in millions of modern-day wage slaves because driving down labor costs is one of the sure-fire ways to boost profits. This creates domestic chaos. This chaos is then mis-reported and blame reassigned to the indigenous populations by the industrialists' friends (and vendors of information) in the media. This batch of apparatchiks provide cover for massive fraud throughout public and private industry. The fraudsters then do anything they can to stay in power to prevent being brought to justice including manufacturing plagues and rigging elections. The chaos circle continues until people are so angry they are willing to vent that anger in a direction controlled by the government (they hope).
I suspect that some flavor of this recipe has existed in most major conflicts throughout history.
Yes, Ruth, it's not just profit, it's the sociopathic craving to control vast populations. I suspect that, regardless of political affiliation, the extremely sophisticated PR experts of the Deep State have figured out exactly how to trigger the kind of indignation that leads to "justified" wars, including the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs. And it's not just influencing the news, but owning electeds and controlling government agencies, and creating news from thin air like having the CIA start "revolutions" in other countries, etc. But the profit motive is still there. When the invisible uni-party finds ways to control the populace, they make the federal government pay (that would be our tax dollars or big loans our grandkids will be stuck with) for big projects etc. Then the profits roll in for the 0.1%, no matter who's "in charge."
Bored? Most leaders wage war because they're evil. They have no sense of real meaning in their lives, and thrive on the feelings of power that come from controlling and hurting others. They feed off of the strife and pain they cause-- that's their energy source.
Evil and sociopathic.
Bill Gates anyone?
Bill Gates has, among other things, waged war against little children, injecting them with a serpent's fang; supposedly to 'save' them, studies have shown that the African children vaccinated though the efforts of Gate's GAVI may have experienced less of the target disease, but died at higher rates than the children not injected. The word "unvaccinated" makes no sense, as the injection of a mixture of foreign substances into the body cannot be undone.) - Video clips from decades ago show Billy talking about controlling population though vaccination. The segments in which he talks about 'thrusting the needle in and injecting the vaccine into their bloodstream' are downright creepy. Even without revelations of Epstein adjacent activity.... Gates is a thoroughly untrustworthy figure, reminiscent of a parasite.
Well, John Leake, you are again, right on the money. I identify with your Grandfather, in that I desire the elusive, boring life, and savor the quiet, thanking God for the lack of drama... It is when my own life is most appreciated. I've had too much excitement for one lifetime already, and I have along way to go yet. Unfortunately, peace and prosperity must be fought for and defended at all cost. So much for the boring, peaceful life. Freedom is not free. I am grateful for those who fought before me, and taught us that ignoring the fight is not affordable, BECAUSE EVIL NEVER RESTS. Complacency and apathy are deadly sins.
They thought the war would be short, sort things out on borders and who owned or controlled this and that. . Few people killed, lots of parades and medals afterwards and that would be about it. They forgot, or didn't pay attention to the American Civil War, which also started with that illusion on both sides. The South certainly thought the war would be easily won and it seemed at first that they would be correct. At first things seem to be going smoothly. Can you say Blitzkrieg? Illusions like that persist usually by initial success. See Vietnam, see Iraq, etc, and so forth. They thought in terms of Gunboat Diplomacy, conflicts in faraway places like Africa (The Thin Red Line) or Asia (The French Foreign Legion) Or the Opium Wars, etc. You read about it in the papers weeks or month later, rather than long drawn out slogs close to home. The thinking of the day was as in the poem The Modern Traveler: We have the Maxim Gun and they have not. But in this case both sides had the Maxim Gun.
Or to put it another way: Everything looks good on paper.
Dirty fiat paper always pencils-out with a printing press.
The average person does not usually want war, which is why governments allow events like Pearle Harbor, 9-11, and October 7 to happen. The question is why do governments want war? I think the answer is more about money and power than about boredom.
John Charmley in Churchill: The End of Glory recounts a story of Young British men headed off to WW I. When interviewed, to a man, all believed the government was lying about reasons for war but went without questioning. Author could not explain that information.
Is this why grunts are looked at as "cannon fodder"?
Self respect gone? Just looking for adventure?
But how one thinks of and treats an "enemy" will be how your own government will end up treating you.
Robert Graves' "Goodbye to All That" is worth reading from that point of view. He somehow survived the whole war, having gone to the Western Front straight from school. He wrote that soldiers - British, French, or German - felt no kinship with the civilians back home, but related more to the "enemy" soldiers who were in the same boat. The survivors never told their families and friends what it had been like.
Graves wrote that he and all the soldiers he knew were motivated above all by regimental pride and loyalty. Neither king, country nor religion meant much to them at all; but they could not let the regiment down. He quoted with approval the lines of his fellow soldier:
"The Kiss"
To these I turn, in these I trust—
Brother Lead and Sister Steel.
To his blind power I make appeal,
I guard her beauty clean from rust.
He spins and burns and loves the air,
And splits a skull to win my praise;
But up the nobly marching days
She glitters naked, cold and fair.
Sweet Sister, grant your soldier this:
That in good fury he may feel
The body where he sets his heel
Quail from your downward darting kiss.
- Siegfried Sassoon.
Impressive poetry.
Interesting that we're nowadays turning to, and trusting in, gold and silver.
But I suspect that we'll be increasingly resorting to lead and steel again over the next three years or so.
I have never been able to penetrate the high thorn fence of mathematical formulae and abstruse verbiage that economists have thrown up around their bunkers. But it makes sense to me that currency based on precious metals avoids inflation, which is the financial equivalent of the Black Death.
Interesting piece. I have often thought of this idea in relation to wealthy trust fund babies I have encountered over the years. Many seem to seek out drugs, alcohol, fast driving in expensive cars, getting tossed out of prep schools and the like. It almost seemed to me they were trying to make trouble for themselves, to set up roadblocks. I felt maybe it was because their lives seemed too good, without enough challenges in a way.
Indeed, the cycles of human nature, especially that of our imperfect nature, are a curse on humanity.
A fascinating book: The War That Ended Peace by Margaret MacMillan, detailed events during the years leading up to World War I. Still, it failed to pinpoint the exact reason for the war, other than a series of events that culminated at the same time. One of those pre-war facts I found interesting was that key War rulers—King George V of Great Britain, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia—were all grandchildren of Queen Victoria. The incest of the Crown was so rampant that Queen Victoria was considered the grandmother of Europe.
The insanity of World War I may have been caused by the insanity caused by incest and a family feud.
Thanks John. Interesting psychological take on the progress of history. We agree the cycle of boredom and desire for the excitement is relevant but consider the politics of self interest also significant in both this psychological context and the context of ever changing events. Also differential intelligence and ability of the part of Kings ( and such like) ministers, wives, heirs, siblings and so on. Also, we better not leave out Gods and their acolytes and followers. Certainly peace does not seem to be something many humans habitually enjoy or profit from despite saying they do. One nice thing about history is that we not doomed to scientific orthodoxy, as we are with medicine these days, and are free to speculate as much as we like. Well almost.
Nature manhandles man into a sturdy, somber unit. Surviving this, these men of the earth rather relish "boredom". There's never a shortage of work to be done. Ever. But when there is, there's always fishing and hunting.
"When prosperity removes external threats, a large portion of the population—especially young people—seek stimulation in political extremism, bouts of social-media outrage, interpersonal melodrama, and an array of other self-created crises. Conflict becomes a substitute for purpose."
Kind of sounds like right now, right here, doesn't it?
I think he called you an armchair quarterback - "Conflict becomes a substitute for purpose," is something only a Cry Boomer would use to justify the status quo they'd like to maintain.
Go crawl back under your rock to your alternate reality.
... do you feel the narrative slipping-away old timer?
'From a summary of Guy's Hospital Gazette (1914):
' The best definition I have heard of modern warfare is, “Months of boredom punctuated by moments of extreme terror."'
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/103851/where-does-the-phrase-boredom-punctuated-by-moments-of-terror-come-from
John,
I consider Schopenhauer to be the godfather of existentialism, though you can trace "existentialist" habits of thought back to Heraclitus, who boldly proclaimed that one cannot step into the same river twice (because it was no longer the same river). But existentialist mindsets can lead to war.
It has been said that the nihilistic, anti-rational, and anti-beauty movement known as Dada-ism can be explained by World War I, but it has also been said that Dada-ism explains the war. Here is a pull-quote from Smithsonian Magazine online:
---------------------------------------------------------
“Without World War I there is no Dada,” says Laurent Le Bon, the curator of the Pompidou Center’s show. “But there’s a French saying, ‘Dada explains the war more than the war explains Dada.’
---------------------------------------------------------
When you let philosophy decay to the point where it was at the turn of the twentieth century -- thanks to thinkers like Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Schopenhauer, and the dreaded Existentialists and irrationalists that got spawned by them -- then you will get a lot of young punks who have no direction in which to steer their life energy.
Such an inroad into philosophy, and therefore into culture, sets you up for conditions that are so poor that the only way that it was known to escape them is by engaging in war. As Ayn Rand said, ideas matter. As soon as a tipping point of bad ideas is crossed, society can become destined for a hard reset.
While the world on the surface looked pretty good in 1914, that was from the momentum created by ideas held long before by the better philosophers in humanity's history (e.g., Aristotle, Aquinas, Bacon, Spinoza).
I read where WWI was started because a German industrialist was pretty angry at having to share some of the wealth with the common population and was part of the plot that assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This triggered the business/diplomatic actions of WWI.
Please correct me if this is wrong.
I do feel that boredom sets in for most human beings in western culture because of a profound disconnection from the natural world. This alone gave rise to so many current ills & dis easement.
The word evil spelled backwards is live. Very few people understand what true aliveness is. Of course when one is truly alive, he or she cannot be controlled or needs to be controlled.
I've done a fair amount of study on the origins of WW1 and I've never read anything confirming the German industrialist narrative. After reading many books on the subject, I've come to same conclusion as many others, that the war really wasn't the fault of any one country....but if one must assign blame, it probably should be blamed on elements in the Serbian government, the intransigence of the Austro-Hungarian government, and Russia (who initiated a secret mobilization way before the public announcement thus forcing German mobilization when the Germans found out). The other major problem was communication. The telegraph was the primary means of government contact and messages passed each other while in transit and invariably got confused. Prewar writings from most of the major players which were analyzed much later showed that none of the major powers wanted war....the Kaiser and the Tzar were absolutely terrified......but it happened anyway.
I agree with everything you write - but I believe that Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, bears much of the responsibility. He took it upon himself, when war was imminent, to give the French government assurances that Britain would back them up ***whatever happened*** - and kept that secret from Parliament, the Cabinet, and even the PM. This encouraged the French in their insolent behaviour toward the Germans. They, in turn, were quite rightly afraid of having to fight a war on two fronts if attacked by France and Russia. So they decided to take France out of the war with another lightning victory, as in 1870.
I think Grey deserved to be hanged.
I see that I'm not the only one who's been reading...
:)
I learned those facts in 1967.
Sorry if that came across as stroppy. I studied history at Cambridge and we read a good deal about the world wars. Of course a lot of the most important facts were concealed from us. I liked A. J. P. Taylor, but I never even heard the name of David Irving. We were given to believe that Hitler was responsible for WW2, and FDR's role in cynically planning it was never even hinted at. We were told that Pearl Harbor was a total surprise, and that while Churchill liked the odd drink it never - of course - affected his judgment, let alone his honour.
I read William Manchester's biography of Churchill a long time ago, and I remember him saying that Churchill always had some alcohol in his bloodstream, but that it was rarely enough to affect his judgement. I have no way of knowing how accurate that is, but I'd like to think that he wasn't crocked during the entire war.....
No, you're good. I just didn't have time to reply. Cambridge in 1967? You've got me beat. I'm a history major, but at the University of Maryland....certainly not Cambridge. However, it is a subject that seriously interests me and I've read quite a few books on the origins of the war. I agree about Grey, but I was really surprised to learn about Sasonov and Russias unpublicized "pre-mobilisation" (long before the German mobilization) which Sasonov denied to Germany, Britain and France. The German government even confirmed that the Russian mobilization was happening when they received posters from the Warsaw military district (which was facing Germany, not Austro-Hungary) announcing it. When presented with the evidence, no one in London or Paris believed any of it..... especially Grey and his subordinates. They simply thought that the Germans were lying, and they were in far too deep with the French to back out even if they wanted to . The result was the very public German mobilization, the Kaiser and Germany have been blamed for the war ever since.
I've never read anything about Sasonov and the secret Russian mobilization in any of the history books, even though the information has been available to historians for years. Instead of reading about this in a book, I actually heard about this on a podcast called "When Diplomacy Fails" by Zack Twamley, a young Irish historian who actually went back and researched the established narrative (and found some of its flaws and inaccuracies). Twamley said that he was surprised by the evidence, before doing the research he had generally accepted the established narrative (that Germany was responsible for the war). Now he doesn't think so.
It's amazing how hard it is for the truth to be accepted once a certain narrative is in place....no matter how flawed or untruthful that narrative is....
My mistake! I wrote "Stirling" for "Irving".
I think the connection you describe cannot have been of decisive importance. Many such events worked together, but it is true that many civilians were excited at the prospect of war. That may be true even today.
The reason for WWI is the same reason as all the other conflicts, divisions and hate of the last two thousand years. The problem is no one believes in the dark, corrupting supernatural forces that afflict men in power, although Scripture is very clear regarding their existence and the Old Testament is clear on which rulers were afflicted, such as King Saul. Satan doesn't want to control simply one person, it wants to control the one person who rules, thereby afflicting an entire nation. Read The War Against Humanity by Anonymous Patriot to understand, so that you're no longer in the dark regarding what should be obvious to anyone who fully understands the Bible. Christ didn't come only to die for our sins - He came to defeat Satan.
John Leake taps into the realm of the profound: "Conflict becomes a substitute for purpose."
In the conflict resolution protocol Divine Collaboration pre-convening steps often expose the dynamics that Leake so aptly highlights.
I'd never thought of the situation in precisely the pithy phrase Leake uses.
As one guides and motivates parties to articulate interests, considerable bric-a-brac goes by the wayside as parties recognize less-than-valid conflict drivers.
Pushed toward giving voice to their purpose (in the form of interests and needs) the conflict dissolves, sometimes with quite astounding speed. Conflict that substitutes for purpose folds up and peace is established by newly uncovered purpose.
Thanks for the insight, John.