By David Swanson
Books about how World War I started, and to a lesser degree how World War II started, have tended in recent years to explain that these wars didn’t actually come as a surprise, because top government officials saw them coming for years. But these revised histories admit that the general public was pretty much clueless and shocked.
The fact is that anyone in the know or diligently seeking out the facts could see, in rough outline, the danger of World War I or World War II coming years ahead, just as one can see the threats of environmental collapse and World War III approaching now. But the general public lacked a decent understanding prior to the first two world wars and lacks it now on the looming dangers created by environmental destruction and aggressive flirtation with World War III.
What led to the first two world wars and allowed numerous wise observers to warn of them years ahead, even to warn of World War II immediately upon completion of the treaty that ended World War I? A number of factors ought to be obvious but are generally overlooked:
- Acceptance of war, leading to steady preparation for it.
- A major arms race, making instruments of death in fact our leading industry, with hope placed in a balance or domination of powers of war, rather than an overcoming of war.
- The momentum created for war by massive investment in highly profitable (and status and career advancing) weaponry and other military expenditures.
- Fear in each nation of the war intentions of the others, driven by propaganda that encourages fear and discourages understanding of the other sides.
- The belief produced by the above factors that war, unlike the tango, only takes one. On the basis of that belief, each side must prepare for war as self-protection from another war-maker, but doing so is not believed to be a choice or an action of any kind; rather, it is a law of physics, an inevitable occurrence, something to be observed and chattered about like the weather.
- The consequent, though seemingly mad, willingness by those in power to risk potentially apocalyptic war rather than to pursue survival without war.
World War I was preceded by wars in North Africa and South-Eastern Europe. Weapons spending and war planning soared. Efforts to preserve the peace were launched. Then Austria-Hungary was handed an excuse for attacking Serbia, and certain Germans saw an excuse for attacking Belgium and France, and certain Brits saw an opportunity for fighting Germany, and so forth, and the slaughter was on. It could have been prevented, but the policies of decades made it likely, regardless of the immediate trigger. The public had very little idea.
World War II followed decades of the first war’s victors causing the German people to suffer economically while building up bitter resentment, of another unprecedented arms race, of Western investment in Nazis as preferable to leftists, and of training up Japan as a junior partner in empire but turning against it when it went too far. The Nazi treatment of Jews was knowable and protested. The U.S. military’s aggression toward Japan was knowable and protested. The U.S. government drew up a list of actions that could provoke a Japanese attack, including an embargo on oil, and took each of those actions.
Much of the public never saw either world war coming. Much of the U.S. public believed the U.S. would stay out of the wars once they had begun. And U.S. voters twice elected presidents who were planning to enter world wars but campaigning on promises not to.
David Fromkin’s book on the beginning of World War I, Europe’s Last Summer, draws just the wrong conclusions. “It was no accident that Europe went to war at that time,” he writes. “It was the result of premeditated decisions by two governments. [He means Austria and Germany.] Once those two countries had invaded their neighbors, there was no way for the neighbors to keep the peace. That was true in World War II; at Pearl Harbor, Japan made the war-or-peace decision not merely for itself, but for the unwilling United States as well, by launching its attack. Nor had America any more choice in Europe in 1941; Hitler’s Germany declared war on the United States, to which America was obliged to respond.”
Fromkin is giving an accurate description of a war of rich on poor. When the United States attacks Iraq or Syria or Pakistan or Yemen or Somalia or Afghanistan or Libya or Panama or Vietnam, etc., etc., no cooperation is required from the poor nation that is bombed or invaded. There is war because the Pentagon says so, although the form that resistance takes is completely open to choice. But had the nations that Fromkin grants innocence in World Wars One and Two spent the previous decades disarming and practicing respectful diplomacy, aid, cooperation, peacemaking, and establishment of the rule of law, there could not have been the rich-on-rich wars that constitute the worst short-time-period events in human history and have been avoided since 1945. Fromkin traces, as most authors do, Germany’s WWI aggression to its fear of its neighbors. What if those neighbors had been unfearable?
Perhaps they would have been attacked anyway. Iraq and Libya disarmed, in terms of so-called WMDs, and the U.S. attacked them.
Or perhaps they would have been left alone. Most nations that do not threaten their neighbors are not threatened in return.
In any case, there would have been no world wars killing tens of millions of people if there hadn’t been willing partners on both sides. Any war there was would have been one-sided. Any nonviolent resistance would likewise have experienced one-sided suffering. But most of the death and destruction would not have happened.
The United States has pulled out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and expanded NATO to a dozen new nations, moving right up to the border of Russia. It’s placed troops and weapons on the Russian border. It’s organized a coup in Ukraine and installed a Ukrainian government full of neo-Nazis. It’s lied to its people about Russian invasions and Russian attacks on airplanes. It’s fantasized about its missile-defense system allowing it to attack Russia, or China for that matter, without counter-attack. It’s proposed to put more nukes in Europe aimed at Russia. It’s built bases around the edges of China. It’s trying to militarize Japan again. It’s imposed sanctions on Russia. It’s threatened, mocked, ridiculed, and demonized Russia and its president — and North Korea for good measure. Informed observers warn of the heightened risk of nuclear Armageddon. And most people in the United States haven’t a clue.
While I’m not suffering under the delusion that violence is Russia’s only or wisest or most strategic response, neither am I urging Russia to turn the other cheek. Having been saddled with a U.S. identity when I’d prefer a local or global one, it’s not my place to tell Russia what to do (could I improve on Tolstoy?). But I can tell the U.S. public to wake up and put a stop to this madness before it kills us all. World War III is not inevitable, but it is clearly headed our way if we don’t change course. And changing course would give us our best shot at avoiding environmental disaster as well.
What Are WE? Nuking FUT$!?
Our Towns are on this projection; mine in Eagle Lake central FL and yours on the narrative in MD, VT and RI (all in one mirved SATAN SS-18)!
I’m ordering one small step toward sanity, a Sky Blue Scarf to fly in the face of such U卐’ MADNEϟϟ this July 4th!
War achieves two things, it culls world population and creates profits for the businesses that invest in them.This model has been going on since the first conflicts between city states arose.
Within modern nations a system of law, courts and police under a central government allows the citizens, towns and states to NOT arm, but depend on the government ( with luck, democratic) to provide security. Most of the 195 odd nations do not feel very secure and so spend too much on armies and seek alliances even with the Devils that drag them into dumb wars. Only a world government could offer the universal laws and structures to build peace around. World armies would have to lead with non-violence (ala King and Gandhi) against the individuals who would war and kill or simply refuse to follow world law. Bob Neumann
Then Bob know your enemy..it is me XD
We must all switch to renewable energy suppliers and ethical banks immediately. If we divest from makers and financiers of warfare and armaments we can end war.
I think the public at large needs to understand the cause of war and the dynamics of that cause. That means delving into the history of wars and finding a common patten. I have just read an interesting book last year The Assassination of the Archduke by Greg King and Sue Woolmans.
The initial aggravation seems to always be economic, and those who have vested interests that are perceived to be under threat. Since the ancient world such oligarchs have always hidden the real reasons and replaced them with pretexts and myths. eg. Paris being tempted by Athena to seduce the wife of Meneleus and stealing Helen to Troy. This was the pretext the Greeks used to invade Troy. I don’t believe that was the real reason. Tensions had been simmering for some time and the chronicler of the Trojan war, Homer was criticised by Thucydides for being a fabricator of such myths. If we study Thucydides account of the Pelopenesian wars we see how all the surrounding city states start taking sides, Corcryrer rebels against Corinth, Sparta defends Corcryrer, Athens erroneously sides with Corcryrer and all these get sucked into an evil vortex.
This same kind of vortex happened in WWI when Franz Joseph of Austria needed a pretext to sort out Serbia. Franz Joseph was a typical psychopath who used his own nephew Franz Ferdinand as the sacrificial lamb, deliberately put him in harms way on his official tour through Sarajevo. And so all the neighbouring nations start taking sides and the vortex of evil gets deeper and deeper as it sucks in more countries.
Readers like myself are still mystified as to why countries like Britain , Germany and Russia didn’t just stay out of it and leave it as a local conflict. To what extent were these countries economically co-dependent on each other? And today how much dependency have we placed on the oil industry?
Quote by Hermann Goring in Nuremburg Diary after WW II
“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don’t want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
It sure sounds relevant today.
Fastest way to war threaten the rich and powerful. Good idea stupid