History Rhymes

"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme." - Mark Twain

Everyone close to me knows that I have an interest in World War I. Some might call it an obsession, but I think that is an overstatement. The reason for my interest is because many of the events of the 20th and 21st Centuries had origins in the first World War. I believe that one cannot understand the world today without some sort of understanding of World War I. Luckily, as we approach the 100th anniversary there is more and more discussion of the world before, the events leading up to, the tactics and technology, and the world after "The Great War".

American corpses on the beaches of Tarawa. We had no such images in the first World War, which is partially why we don't know as much about it

In the U.S. at least, there is, has always been, and probably always will be more focus on the second World War. This could be because many of us still have living relatives that fought in that war. It could be because the U.S. involvement was so much greater (16 million U.S. soldiers fought in WWII vs. 300,000 in WWI). It could be because there were more casualties (60-80 million total deaths in WWII vs. 16-17 million total deaths in WWI). Perhaps the reason we ignore the first world war is because some saw the second world war as it's inevitable conclusion. In my opinion though, there is also another factor: after any war, it takes time to gain perspective. Many are traumatized. Many have difficulty sharing their stories because they want to forget or they feel like most others can't relate. Many are grieving for the people and the world they lost. As time goes on, lives are rebuilt. The memories become a little less painful. Perhaps the survivors never "get over" their loss, but they can at least come to peace with it. The problem was, just as this was beginning to happen after the first World War, World War II happened.

The causes of World War II were in many ways simpler. Personally, I don't think that the Second World War was inevitable after World War I, but it cannot be denied that many of the reasons why it happened can be drawn as dotted lines from 1919. Understanding the reasons why the first World War happened, at least in the way it did, is much more complicated. Unlike the people clamoring for war in 1914, we know now that the great powers were virtually deadlocked for 4 years. We know that the empires of Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, and Turkey were destroyed and the Empires of Britain and France were weaker in 1918 than in 1914. We know that the theory of mutually assured destruction does not always work. Looking back at the history, one cannot help at times to think that there was some super-natural force that kept the two sides deadlocked for so long slogging it out. Both sides had opportunities to win the whole war or at least win a decisive battle if they would just have pushed a little harder at the right time, yet it did not happen. We know that now because, well, hindsight is 20/20.

How different would the world be if we could have stopped this?

The great tragedy of the first World War, at least for those of us in the present, is that it almost seems like it happened by accident. If I had a time machine and I could go back and prevent the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, perhaps I could prevent WWI (and thereby WWII) from ever happening. Even if not, surely it would have happened differently (and probably not as horrifically) right? Digging a little deeper though, it is clear that the Great War was did not happen by accident. If the assassination of one man can spark the biggest war in history (at that time), there must have been a powder keg.

The scary thing is that when we pick apart the reasons for WWI there are clear parallels with today, 100 years later. Maybe we are sitting on top of a powder keg ourselves?

A confusing web of alliances. It may seem ridiculous, but don't we have the same thing today?

- Entangled alliances: The reason the first World War was a world war and not a regional conflict was because of a set of confusing alliances between the great powers. Russia was allied with Serbia because they shared a Slavic background. Germany was allied with Austria because they shared a Teutonic background and because Germany was somewhat isolated in the center of Europe without the Austrio-Hungarian alliance. France and Russia were allies because they feared the rise of the German Empire. Today, we can look at the alliances between Russia and Syria, between the U.S. and Israel, between China and North Korea or between Iran and Syria. In 1914, when Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, Austria-Hungary felt free to punish Serbia as they wished because they had been given a "blank check" from their German allies. One could surely imagine Israel going a little too far in punishing Syria or Palestine after a terrorist attack, right? Surely, with their big brother America behind them they would have nothing to fear. Yet we can also imagine how the Iranian or Russian allies of said nation might draw the line somewhere.

French schoolchildren in 1887 being taught to never forget the lost provinces of Alsace and Lorraine

- Old Grudges: in 1914, France had been waiting for 40 years for an excuse to fight Germany after Germany humiliated France and annexed the Alsace-Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian war. Luckily no one has any grudges against the U.S. today though... except for Iran... and Cuba... and Pakistan... and Yemen and Iraq and Russia and Palestine and Egypt and Lebanon and Serbia.

If a major war breaks out in the next couple years, there's a good chance it will start somewhere in the former Ottoman Empire.

- Regional Conflicts: Though there had not been a "major war" in 1914 since 1871, there were plenty of minor ones; in particular, the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913. The first Balkan War represented the chiseling away of the European territories of the Ottoman Empire. The second Balkan War was about who should get the spoils. Though "The Great Powers" were not directly involved, their reactions were preludes to the Great War. The Serbians were upset that their Russian allies had not come to their aid. Austria-Hungary was upset that Germany had not come to it's aid. The memories of 1912 and 1913 were still fresh for all sides in 1914. 100 years later, there is still conflict in the former territory of the Ottoman Empire. Today, the focus is in Syria. As I write this, the outcome of the Syrian Civil War is still unclear but it is easy to imagine a resolution that leaves plenty of resentment. The Syrian government of Bashir al Assad may resent Iran or Russia for refusing to help them more. The Syrian rebels and possibly Israel may resent the US for not helping more. If we become involved in a new conflict in a couple years, it will all be remembered.

The HMS dreadnought, one of the first "modern" battleships

- An Arms race: In the wars leading up to WWI, there was a Naval Arms race between Germany and Britain. Britain built the Dreadnoughts, predecessors of today's battleships. Kaiser Wilhelm felt that a great navy was the mark of a great nation, so made sure Germany had them too. Britain, feeling that it was losing grip on it's longtime naval dominance, felt that it had to stay one step ahead. Ironically, there was only one major naval battle in WWI and if either country had spent more time developing bomber planes or tanks before the war they might have had a decisive advantage. However, it cannot be denied that the naval arms race before the war played a significant role, especially in bringing the UK into the war in the first place. Though they had signed a treaty that pledged them to defend any neutral nation that was attacked (Holland and Belgium were invaded by Germany in the early days of the war), this treaty was not quite as firm as the alliances that caused Germany, Russia and France to enter. The real reason Britain entered the war is to protect it's naval dominance. Today, we might compare this to the nuclear arms race. The US certainly doesn't want Iran or North Korea to built atomic bombs, but even if Russia, China or India were to build more atomic bombs it would throw off the balance of power. In reality, this is not so much of a balance, since the US is thought to have more active nuclear weapons than all the other countries in the world combined. It is very likely that if we were to enter another world war, nuclear weapons might not even be used. This, however, does not mean that we don't have an interest in maintaining our nuclear dominance... an interest that might strong enough to go to war over.

By 1914, most of Africa was controlled by European colonial powers

- Imperialism: In 1914, Germany was still building it's empire. Germany had only unified 40 years earlier and it was late to the Imperialism game but it was quickly acquiring colonies in Africa, Asia and the Pacific. Britain was fighting to maintain it's empire as Germany scrambled for territory in Africa and there was an increasing call for self-determination in India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other colonies. The empires of today are not so much a matter of outright rule, but the freedom to conduct business and station military bases wherever we choose. The conflicts in Egypt and Syria have placed these interests in danger. The US pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan may leave the door open for Iran, and possibly China and/or Russia.

British soldiers march through open fields at the Battle of the Somme, only to be mowed down by German machine guns

- New Technology & Old Tactics: In 1914, the prevailing military doctrine was to stay on the attack. The military colleges had been teaching the "Primacy of the Offensive" for 40 years after they had been thrown off balance by a fast moving Germany in the Franco-Prussian war. The problem was that in 1914, defensive technology such as machine guns, barbed wire, land mines and observation balloons had developed faster than offensive technology. Bomber planes, tanks, flame throwers and chemical weapons would appear later in the war as responses to the stalemate in the trenches but the technology was so new that the tactics had not yet caught up. Throughout most of the war, both sides would attempt suicidal missions like cavalry charges and slow marches through bombed out craters into the face of artillery and machine gun fire from well entrenched positions. This problem was especially slow to change because much of the leadership on both sides came from the aristocracy rather than the meritocracy. Today, there is also lot of new technology that we have not fully learned how to use or defend against. Drones, Missile Defense Systems and EMPs are perhaps the best examples, but the US military hasn't really learned how to defend against even "low-tech" weapons such as roadside bombs and IEDs, and since Vietnam we have been embarrassed by our inability to fight Urban and Guerilla warfare.

The Russian military was years behind France of Germany, but with a huge population and virtually unlimited natural resources, the potential was there to become an unstoppable force... should the world let them

- The emergence of new Super Powers: One of the things that pushed Germany into a war in 1914 was the rise of Russia. Though the Russian Empire would be short lived, Russia's power would continue to grow. Russia's population in 1914 was 175 million, twice that of the US, 4.3 times that of France and 2.7 times that of Germany. Russia was less Industrialized than any of those nations and it's military was years behind but if it was given the time to develop, Russia would be an unstoppable force. Germany knew that if they didn't stop them now they might not have another chance. Today, the emerging super powers are China and India. Together, the two countries make up 36% of the population of the world. Though their militaries are not anywhere close to as powerful as the US military, the potential is there. It should be remembered that the US entered WWII with the 17th ranked military in the world. With the right population, industrial and economic resources, a nations military power can grow quite quickly.

Is this where we are today?

If I did have a time machine and I could go back and try to stop the first World War, I would certainly try. Perhaps I could even stop the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, but if the power-keg theory is true it would only have prevented war for so long and no matter how much knowledge of the future or access to leadership I had, there would be little I could do except to advise them how to make some terrible situations slightly less terrible. Perhaps the same is true today. If a major world wide conflict were to happen, there might be little that anyone could do about it. I just hope that in looking to find the way forward we don't forget the past.