Will there ever be another major war between European powers again?

[Sava]

Originally posted by PLATO


In time Sava...in time.

If there's a God... I hope he's nicer than me. Because I don't think we deserve to exist. Plus, I doubt humanity is going to die out within my lifetime. Oh well, they smell.

[MrFun]

We try to live up to your standards Sava, but please forgive us for our failings.

[Sava]

Originally posted by MrFun
We try to live up to your standards Sava, but please forgive us for our failings.

nope, extinction for you all

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Bear with some nitpicking here.

Isn't Chechnia technically still a part of the Russian homeland?

I don't know if was ever a Soviet Republic. Thus it cannot be called a succesor state.

I might be wrong.

It's still part of Russia and I'm not sure if it's in Europe but you get the idea.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
Actually, pre-WW1 germany was very democratic I beleive, and the German Constitution in the 20's is, to my mind, one of the most democratic there has ever been - it elected Hitler of its own accord. Democracy won't stop war at all.

Further more, the UK pre-WW1 did have, or was developing, a mass educational system (compulsory schooling had come in in the 1870's i beleive). And I have heard many say that Germany had the best system of Social Welfare at that time (SDP were v.popular, I think they were in power in 1914 aswell, but not to sure.)

Pre WWI Germany wasn't a democracy. Bismarck introduced certain social security measures, but that didn't turn a monarchy into a democracy. And the hint to constitution of the 20ies (Weimar Republic) is ok, but then it wasn't the Weimar Republic that started the war, it was Hitler's idea after he abolished everything democratic.....

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Military balance plays a huge roll in combination with today's weapons, and that ties directly into the last two world wars. It is now (and it basically became that way just prior to WWI, maybe even the US Civil War) impossible to wage war without massive destruction and loss for all parties unless one side has a huge military advantage. This is why NATO can gang up on Serbia without much thought, but France and Germany wouldn't have at it. There would be so much smoking rubble and so many dead bodies on both sides of that type of conflict that any "victory" would be hopelessly offset by the losses getting there. Which is exactly what you would have thought WWI had taught us, but apparently we needed WWII to really drive that point home.

Thats certainly true, but this (military balance) alone does not explain the foreign policy of most euro countries after WW2, and the absence of war between those countries.

[East Street Trader]

War is something that gets foisted on people. By leaders who indulge themselves by getting their followers to fight when this serves the power games with which they entertain themselves.

It has been ever thus.

The fact that the UK had Afghanistan and Iraq foisted on them by Blair demonstrates that we have not quite outgrown this here. But having a major war fought over your own territory helps you to grow up quite quickly about this and that was the experience France had in the Great War and that Germany had in WWII.

It is the commitment to ending such things in those countries which drives the establishment and the development of the European Union.

While the rest of us in Europe have not quite attained their level of maturity we can nevertheless see that they are right so we are gradually being led by them towards establishing an adult grip on our leaders through arrangements and institutions which prevent their warmongering - at least in europe - before it can get itself properly started.

And this process has indeed reached the point where it is inconceivable for me to receive a letter from the UK government sending me greetings and requiring me to set off to war with Germany or with France as my forfathers have so often had to do.

It will take vigilance to maintain this happy state of affairs. Because the modern communications media confer upon leaders even more ability to play on people's pride and feelings than existed before. Which gives leaders a powerful tool.

But I believe that establishing such close economic inter-dependance has turned out to be effective enough to achieve its object of making that process an extremely difficult one to begin in western europe.

And, indeed, there are some signs that the rest of the world is growing up a bit about all of this too. Before long I rather think the debate will be, not whether war between Eurpean countries is any longer possible, but rather whether war between any nation states is possible.

Although that does depend on a very large number of people coming to appreciate that having history books littered with wars is an illustration of political and social imaturity not some natural state.

[VetLegion]

Can someone point out to me a case of two parliaments declaring war on each other, or two democracies warring?

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by BeBro


Pre WWI Germany wasn't a democracy. Bismarck introduced certain social security measures, but that didn't turn a monarchy into a democracy. And the hint to constitution of the 20ies (Weimar Republic) is ok, but then it wasn't the Weimar Republic that started the war, it was Hitler's idea after he abolished everything democratic.....

I beleive there was actually full male sufferage pre-1914 germany.

And it was the weirmar republic that let Hitler get in, the people voted for him, and he had there support pretty much to the end.

[The Viceroy]

VetLegion, I agree .. I have still to hear a solid argument for 2 democracies going to war ! There are some examples of country's who were developing democracy, or that had democratic chambre's at the time of war, but that does not mean they were democratic.

You could argue that Zimbabwe or Iran or even Syria are democratic .. ha ha ha .. but I think we know they are not.

I still stand by my earlier assertation, no 2 european democratic powers will declare war .. but a civil war within Europe, on ethnic/religious lines is a frighning possibility indeed.. but thats not what the first post asked.

[The Viceroy]

Are we suggesting that Adolf Hitler was not a dictator ?

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
Are we suggesting that Adolf Hitler was not a dictator ?

Not at all, just that he had the support of a majority of the Germany nation. As I said, they did actually VOTE for him.

[The Andy-Man]

BeBro:

Because he [Bismark] felt this way, he saw to it that both the constitution of the North German Confederation and that of the Reich that succeded it provided that elecrtions to Parliament should be by vote of all male citizens who had reached the age of 25 and that this vote should be held by secret ballot.

from Gordon A. Craig 'Germany 1866-1945'


This is about the constitution set up in 1871. the UK at this time did not even have such a liberal electorate (I don't think it did untill after the war, infact).

So I think it is fair to say pre ww1 Germany was quite Democratic.

[Solly]

If Europe experiences a terroristic attack of similar or greater degree than the US, I think we will see civil war between Muslims and true Europeans. The majority of Muslims still think September 11th was justified.

[East Street Trader]

Examiners love questions which invite discussion of the causes of the Great War. Countless millions of words have been written on it and you can find as many learned opinions as you have patience to sit through about it.

What I have never seen much discussed is the personality of the key players and the part that played. Which seems to me silly. If you ask who benefited by what happened the answer is a tiny group of people - mostly in Germany and in the UK - who were sufficiently self important to consider it mattered which country occupied the most land and which exercised the greatest infleunce.

Civ players, but on the grand scale.

Had you lined up all the millions who then fought in the resulting war and asked them if they cared two hoots about such things they would have said they did not.

But, of course, once the small group of "leaders" get far enough down the line towards a war the last thing that happens is for people to examine closely exactly why events are taking place as they are and whether it is a good idea. Instead patriotism gets to be a stronger and stronger force, on each side the "enemy" is demonised and people take up their arms at some point or other along the path as tension rises.

So, in WWII my dad joined up after he saw the City of London set ablaze from one end to the other by a German air raid. That was why he fought. And he became a pilot leading planes which dropped bombs on German cities - no doubt leading some Germans to follow his example.

It is easier to try to cut through the crap about the Great War because the demonising process - from a historical perspective - does not obscure matters. The Kaiser was portrayed, in England, as someone who ate babies. But, in fact, of course he no more actually did so than our own king. What obsures things - a bit - about WWII is that Hitler was an actual monster. But it is worth bearing in mind that all this means is that the demonising process was an easy one to undertake. The fact that this is the only consequence - as opposed to his monstrosity being the direct cause of anyone deciding to oppopse him - is that his mistreatment of shoals of people started before he even secured full political power in Germany. And it then continued for year after year with not a soul suggesting that this was a caussus belli. It was when it was appreciated that he intended to invade Poland that the notion of going to war came up. As with Iraq, reminding people that the opponent is a deep died bastard is just an afterthought - to help reconsile them to war - not the cause.

War has been called the sport of kings. And if you look back to all the wars recorded down the last couple of thousand years it seems to me that what you see is always the same. Some guy who wants to be a bigger king or to govern a bigger country and some other guy who opposes that just for its own sake - because he does not want his own self esteem to drop a bit from giving up some part of those things which prop up his self esteem.

It has always been a pain. Partly for those who do the fighting but rather more so for those who live in the places where the fighting takes place. I recall a fine history book I read about the thirty years war. It had excellent stuff about all the rather romantic characters who flitted in and out of that extraordinary conflict. But it also had some stuff which allowed the reader to see exactly how appalling a life the wretched affair subjected an entire generation to in Europe.

I hope two thusand years turns out to be a short period in the history of the human race. That will only be true if we now kick the habbit of war. And if we manage that, which I believe we will, future generations will look back on the period before we grew up enough to drop that childish habbit and the thing which will then amaze them - as it already amazes me - is why the very large numbers of folk who suffer in war at the behest of so few put up with it.

The guys in the trenches should just have all gone home. Had they strung up the tiny number of imbeciles who put them there well and good.

Or maybe not bother.

But certainly go home.