Albert Einstein was studying in Berlin at the time was one of the few individuals who was disappointed. A famous photo of a hat cheering crowed young Adolph Hitler in the centre shearing the enthusiasm. Henry Ford was destined to send a piece envoy to Europe in favour of piece. and Winston Churchill was the lord of the British admiralty.
I blame both Germany and Britain's public's support for that war. If there was no support on both sides things may have slowed the outbreak quit considerably. By the time the out break of the second a significant attitude of the general public on both sides had noticeably changed. There was very little enthusiasm. The General feeling for this war was sober to say the lest. American attitude was just a foot not of media interest.
By Vietnam there was a complete reverse spin of the world of world war one attitude. Politics rarely had little to do with the first and a lot to do with the second with appeasement to prevent it by the then British prime minister Navel Chamberlain and by Vietnam it was only government policy.
It is a stark contrast of the public attitude at the outbreak of the first war to today. Modern United Nations frowns on warring war lords. There's great resolution about controlling atrocities and bringing to justice crimes against humanity unheard of when the first world war began.
The holocaust of the Jews in Europe Hitler and his cronies probably would have had a terrible time with modern amisty International and United Nations attitude. The German government would have peen badged by out cries of human right violations. No doubt things would have been different if Hitler had Winston Churchill to recon with if Churchill was in power in the thirties.
The press was bringing up to date of reports of political upheaval going on in German post world war two. The modern United Nations and amisisty International attitudes would have politically harassed the Nazi parties for their policies with the Jews. Today's attitude is close to back off threats with human rights violations. The powerful organizations attitudes probably would have prevented the holocaust.
Today's public doesn't understand why the public of Europe kicked off world war one with such great hurrah. If their was no public support I don't think the war would have got off the ground so fast. I blame to much enthusiasm of individuals that made up the public and military at large not "mankind" for that war. "Their enthusiasm supported world war it for themselves."
It was with great enthusiasm, a characteristic carry over warring nature of the last centuries letting war lord politicians get away with ordering the begging of the first world war. One can't compare with the worlds modern public attitudes towards war to those days. The modern United Nations frowns on war lord mentality in any country.
Historians often reference the roots can be traced back to the 1870 -71 Franco- Prussian war. France was intimated by Germany taking away her colonies when she lost them. I don't think it was anything to do with the war itself. I blame the far to much enthusiastic incitement of individuals in the public, before, during and after the 1870-71 war. I don't think the war had anything to do with anything. It was really motivated by just to much enthusiasm of the adventure for war.
It's hard for today's public to understand the enthusiastic attitude of the masses at the time world war 1 was decaled on both sides. Never had their been so many conscientious objectors in anti-war demonstrations tolerated in the history of war since Vietnam compared to the day world war 1 began.
One of the most famous pacifist was Avis Presley. He was imprisoned for a while for his belief. Conscientious objectors where never tolerated during the first world war like it was during Vietnam.
The things politicians in those days neglected and turned a blind eye to in human rights issues amististy International would throw a fit today.
Stories I've read were full of enthusiastic bulling officers often seemed arrogant and prideful. The attitude was ideally suited for military conquests for those days. I often wonder what it would have been like without that kind of buying emotion. If there were more unemotional intellectuals then fighters in the world in those days probably there would have been no desire for power.
The books I read often reminded me of an emotion that hates to loose and often craved revenge just because they believed wrong was done to each other like the all out uncontrollable tit for tat revenge tactics of the Israelis and Palestinians today.
Today the belief it's wrong to kill under any circumstance , is common, ironically very unusual at the start of world war 1.Even today the Israelis are not sick of the killing. Conscientious objections is highly well respected in the modern United Nations.
In the days world war 1 broke out once word got round a man was a pacifist conscientious objector, cruel bullying verbal abuse was common with both strangers and acquaintances branding them "cowards " -or worse.
The words conscientious objector become shorted to conchie, that become a term of abuse and many were stopped in the street with a loud and clear voice for everybody around to hear "Hey Conchie!" and handed the traditional symbol of cowardice a white feather.
Adducted in the navy whether you liked it or not was common place before well before the 20th century. Bullying officers made life tough for some sorry sailors. Often equally tough criminals came under the control of buying sergeants in the army. Unlike today abuse of power in the ranks was tolerated in those days.
From the moment Germany beaten France she began to be encouraged to expand into a leading world power.
Other country politicians were aware of Germany's new found ambitions Much as it is today with Israel and Palestine France paranoid of Germany's intentions French politicians ordered a preparation for war.
The French press public at large smarting at hurt prides at their countries loss, was determined to rally their movement to get back at the Germans some how by taking back Alsace and Larraine, and punishing Germany for it.
A classic " excuse" is clearly evident in news paper rhetoric criticizing Germany to the French people in the papers with the cliché attitude "So they will think twice about doing it again. That'll teach them. We'll give the Germans such a whipping they'll never forget" was common news paper rhetoric.
As with any bully's with prides as big as barge balloons, the German press was intimated and incensed at Frances news paper rhetoric. They pressured Germany's politicians for military build up to show France they'll be a force to recon with. News papers was full of paranoid pride with Russia being allied to France an all. So they began subspeciesly watching Russia very carefully.
Prides don't like being watched closely either. In turn the Russian press urged the governed to rally the army who watched closely Germany's intentions.
Instead of peaceful communication for peaceful solutions politicians were goaded by the press to demand all out war. The German Count Von Afred Schlieffen declared a plan in the German news papers in 1905,in the best interests of Germany the plan was if Germany did go to war it was planed to defeat France before France could take back Alsace and Larraine, first, than attack Russia before it can come to the defend of France.
In the meantime the British press saw if Germany invaded France it would have to go though Belgium. If Belgium was attacked the press was aware channel ports could fall into enemy hands. The press felt Britain was at risk from invasion.
Meanwhile the French press didn't like what they read in the German New papers to the German public. The sentiment was "who does he think he is with such out spoken rhetoric like that? We should take back what once belonged to us"
Meanwhile to secure Britain's Channel ports the British government backed by the press negotiated a treaty with Belgium to guarantee Belgium's safety if she was attacked.
Today maneuvering politicians rarely section assassination as a tool for their country to become powerful over others. In the days leading up to world war 1 it was exactly what was ordered. The aid of a young Serbian nationalist Gavilo Princip was enlisted to put a stop to the heir to the Austrian throne Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
It was an incident that put the future world war 2 dictator Adolph Hitler in the thick of the resulting war, that occurred on the 28th June 1914 when Archduke's car was fire bombed and missed. Principe stepping out from the crowed didn't miss.
With his pistil he shot the duke and his wife dead. Across Europe the press incited the public to blame everybody else for the act. The public didn't need any urging anyway. It was already carried away with the excitement.
Today the public and press blame terrorists vowing never to be intimated into a war with another country as big as the last ones. Today's wars are more like police actions under the watchful eye of originations like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations.
The Austrian press was in a mood for revenge. So to the German and Bavarian press backing their government's promise to help. The Russian press and it's people backed their government's pledge to it's support for the Serbs.
The British and French press now including the public at large cheered their governments at the commitment to the support of the defense of Belgium. Unlike today the press and public gave their governments blessing to politically bully and counter defiance rather than rational calmness.
In the meantime Hitler was in Munich. Life for the past several years for him was no picnic. He had this dream of being somebody one day.
When the incident occurred it razed his spirits. He wasn't the only one. So was the public at large. He was there when one individual standing on a pulpit incited war. The whole crowed was incited into an exited face lighted chanting razed fists punching air frenzy "War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War! War!" Such acts was potentially hypnotic. One can almost be hypnotized by the repeapition
Whole towns were doing the same thing. The public urged on by the press were celebrating a war with a great bravado, hurrahs and cheering. Marches of proud excitement looking forward to adventure and comardmanship all though country's small towns and cities. The public was cheering excited solders on the march with war reminiscent to the day people did world war 2 ended in Europe some 30 years later. Everybody was keen to muck in.
Fathers were often were proud their sons old enough to join up their son's joining up at the expense of the anguish of mothers their sons going of to war. Kids as young as 11 were expected to take an active interest in the resulting adventure of war. Solders gloated their countries would be the winners and be all over and they'll home before Christmas. That was quite a arrogant view point for their enemy solders were saying the same thing. Both sides were adamant they were in for a very short bash they would be the winners.
The German press rallied their reading public to rally Von Schlieffen's plan to be put into action. The government made their move on on the 2 August. Backed by the press urging the public on Germany bullied Belgium the right of passage through the neutral country to invaded France.
The Belgium press in turn was intimated by being bullied by Germany. It rallied the public to rally for their government to defiantly refuse. The Belgium government had no choice if it wanted to save face and refused.
As always with bullies, the German press and public didn't take that too kindly the news of refusal pressing the German government to act. So backed by the press and public at large on August 4th German troops invaded Belgium anyway.
As Britain was bound by the treaty if Belgium was attacked, latter the same day Britain had to honor it commitment declaring war on Germany. Germany declared war back on Britain and continued with the invasion of Belgium in defiance.
Country after country bullied each other to do as they were told or else and defied and bluffed each other in return. The European press and the public at large was in no mood for sanity that year. Nobody was looking at the foresight of what might go wrong.
It appears they didn't know anything about the cliché' often heard today by Murphy's law " What can go wrong will probably go wrong" Both sides were adamant they'll lick the other side other hands down winning the war by Christmas that year.
Hearing talk like that you'd though it was a safe place to be in a middle of a battle beating the enemy without anybody on their side being killed while killing enemy solders. It was a common optimism on both sides.
France, Britain, and Russia were all going to beat Germany. But not from the Germans point of view it wasn't going to be. Fourier was high they'll beat France, Britain and Russia by Christmas. Everybody thought they'll be the winners by Christmas. So with so much press and public support for war world 1 began with no opposition to it the way the public protested the Vietnam war today. It was unthinkable then.
Because Britain, France, including Germany had colonies round the world Australia, New Zealand Canada and plus India expected to become involved. America though remained a neutral county until the sinking of the civilian liner the Luthtainer taking American lives. It caused emotional outrage feelings from the public pressuring the present at the time to declare war on Germany.
Nobody it seems was in any mood to be calm and rational. Revenge for wrongs and lives lost seemed to had overridden, the cliché' we all know to well spoken by pacifists "Revenge won't bring back the dead." So what was the point in America getting involved?
Adolph Hitler survived being killed in action probably what lead to the second world war. The adventures of Adolph Hitler and world war takes up the story from here. No matter what history says, I believe there was to much enthusiasm in the public at large that brought world war 1 on themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment