Parallels: June 1914 - June 2014 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The First World War (1914-1918).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14401670
Events leading up to the June 1914 crisis cascaded out of control and plunged the old continent into the first of its great catastrophes. Nobody intended it, yet in the end, nobody was able to prevent it.

100 years later, are we in a similar situation? What are the parallels? Without any attempt at being systematic and off the top of my head, I can see the following parallels:

- Disintegration of an empire (Ottoman / Soviet Union) leaving a void (Balkans / Eastern Europe) to be occupied by nationalism (Serb / Ukrainian) that could serve as trigger for a clash of the empires (central powers against triple entente / West against Russia-China) with one empire (Austria-Hungary / the West) prospering but in internal decay.

- The collapse of one empire (Ottoman / Soviet Union) benefited another empire (Austria-Hungary took part of Balkans / Nato-EU took part of Easter Europe), but the very expansion planted the seed that did/could lead to a global conflict.

- 1914 like 2014 followed decades of rapid growth in the sciences/technology (not least in armaments) and in material wealth.

- The competition for resources, land and markets opposing Germany against GB in 1914 coalesced into a confrontation of the central powers against the triple entente. Today, competition for resources and markets oppose the West against Russia and China.

I think there are plenty of other parallels. The question really is whether the same causes will lead to the same results or whether it is possible to learn from the mistakes of the past.

Seeing how little will there is to understand the "legitimate interest of the other side" today, there is reason to be pessimistic.

What do you think?
#14456922
I think your comparison could also apply to Europe during the seven, thirty and Napoleonic wars. Once something greatly upsets the status quo, powers (great and small) no longer benefit from the current situation so there is less to loose by acting in some way. Some times those actions are wars, but it can also lead to revolutions/overhauls of society and relations (which might lead to conflicts down the road).

I don't see a strong parallel with WW1 for most of the world, Europe included. Nor do I see a great change in the world's status quo, only changes for those countries directly involved (civil wars mostly) and the boycotts between Russia and the US/EU/Cda - which may also have limited impact as many third parties are not involved. The boycotts reduce consequential losses of open conflict, but the actual expenses of conflict remain very high.
#14457002
Thunderhawk wrote:I think your comparison could also apply to Europe during the seven, thirty and Napoleonic wars.


I understand that. I guess what I meant was that Europeans have so gotten used to peace that most today are incapable of conceiving of the risk of a major military conflict. Yet, I find it astonishing how, in recent months, many have mentally switched into war mode, only admitting the validity of the own arguments. That is not so different from 1914. Nobody in those days expected anything like WWI to happen and people where living in peace and yet incapable of stopping the escalation into war.

I don't see a strong parallel with WW1 for most of the world, Europe included. Nor do I see a great change in the world's status quo, only changes for those countries directly involved (civil wars mostly) and the boycotts between Russia and the US/EU/Cda - which may also have limited impact as many third parties are not involved. The boycotts reduce consequential losses of open conflict, but the actual expenses of conflict remain very high.


The "change in the world's status" that cannot be denied is the arrival of industrial China as a new superpower, which the old superpower has problems coping with, just like the British empire had problems dealing with the arrival of industrial Germany prior to 1914.

Thus, Russia or Ukraine are only a sideshow just like Serbia in 1914. Just like the conflict in the Balkans triggered WWI so the conflict in Ukraine could trigger a wider conflict.

I don't agree that "many third parties are not involved". The US has signed up its allies from Asia to Europe to the sanctions while Russia is trying to get support from the emerging economies, which are only too happy to replace European business in Russia.

If you mean that the sanctions reduce the risk of military conflict, I don't think that is necessarily the case, on the contrary, economic sanctions may be the prelude to war. Many wars are preceded by economic measures and economic interests are always the primary reason for war.

The only way of stopping an escalation that may at one point spiral out of control is a negotiated settlement. A negotiated solution requires that the interests of both sides are taken into consideration.

I think there is some hope on the horizon. Merkel has started to lean on Kiev to accept "de-centralization" (or federation) which goes some way towards Russian demands for "autonomy". She has also made it clear that "Ukraine will not become a Nato member", which fulfills Russia's most important requirement. And there is no hope for Ukraine of joining the EU either, the best it can hope for is partnership status. Once these two points are settled, it is only a matter of deciding about who pays for what in order to get Ukraine back on its feet.

Merkel: Ukraine can go to Eurasian Union

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]