Summary: Talk of another Cold War fills our news, with some forecasting a hot war with Russia — perhaps even WWIII. Today Martin van Creveld looks at the last great power rivalry that drifted into war, and explains why it’s not likely to happen again. (2nd of 2 posts today.}
Slithering into War
By Martin van Creveld
From his website, 19 June 2014
Posted here with his generous permission.
As the centennial of the outbreak of World War I approaches, a deluge of new publications seeks to commemorate it and to re-interpret it. Among the best of the lot is Christopher Clark’s The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 (2014). That is why I have chosen to discuss it here.
The war itself broke out on 31 July. As one would imagine, the search for its origins began right away. Assuming, of course, that the accusations which the various future belligerent started throwing at each other during the preceding weeks should not be seen as part of that search or, at any rate, as preparation for it.
At first it was a question of pointing fingers at personalities, be it Serb Prime Minister Nikola Pasič, or Austrian Chief of Staff Konrad von Hoeztendorf, or the Russian Tsar, or French prime minister René Viviani, or British foreign minister Edward Grey, or the German Kaiser, or whoever.
Very quickly, however, the hunt expanded to include not only persons but entire peoples. Not just Pasič but all, or at any rate most, Serbs were bad people always ready to throw bombs so to undermine the Austrian-Hungarian Empire in the name of irredentism. Not just Hoetzendorf, but many of the ruling circles in Vienna demanded war in the hope of saving the empire from disintegration. Not just the Tsar but many of his people entertained pan-Slavic dreams of expansion, mostly at the expense of Austria-Hungary. Not just Viviani, but the entire French people formed an arrogant nation used to exercise hegemony over the continent and unable to resign itself to its loss. Not just Grey, but the British people as a whole were hypocritical warmongers determined to hold on to their commercial superiority. Not just the Kaiser, but all Germans were power-drunk militarists.
The list goes on and on.
It was this version of events, directed against the losers, which underlay the famous decision postwar decision to saddle Germany with “war guilt,” an innovation in international law that had few predecessors during the previous quarter millennium or so. As one would expect, time caused the debate to change its shape. It was not this or that country but their commons scourge, arms-manufacturers and capitalists in general, who were to blame, claimed Marxists. It was not this or that ruler or people but all those bad Europeans, claimed some American historians. It was not this or that country but the treaty-system as a whole others said. It was not so much the treaties as the railway timetables of the various general staffs, which forced them to act precipitously so as to avoid defeat, claimed other historians still.
The outbreak of World War II, and Germany’s role in it, caused some historians to go back to blaming the Kaiser and his associates. Nobody more so than Fritz Fischer in World power or decline: The controversy over Germany’s aims in the First World War, the original German version of which was first published in 1961. Clark’s work is not specifically directed against any of these interpretations. Nevertheless, in passing he makes short shrift of them. The railway system is barely mentioned. The treaties, he shows, were not automatic but left their signatories with plenty of room for maneuver. Those who allowed the continent to slither into war were rulers, diplomats, and top-ranking soldiers, not the owners of large industrial corporations. The last-named were never even asked for their opinions. Given that economics only came to be considered as part of war during the interwar era, that is not surprising.
More significant still, none of those who ruled the most important powers wanted war — at any rate a general war among the great powers. His occasional bellicose talk notwithstanding, that even applied to the Kaiser. As one of his courtiers was to write later on: His Imperial Majesty liked wargames much better than he liked war itself.
What really happened was quite different. Though decision-makers might not be interested in a general war, quite a few of them were prepared to risk a more limited one. In doing so, the model they had in front of their eyes was, naturally enough, the limited “cabinet wars” of the nineteenth century. Serbia, provided only it could obtain Russian and perhaps French support, was quite ready to fight Austria. Certain governing circles in Austria were quite ready, indeed eager, to go to war against Serbia if only they could be certain that Germany would support them and thereby neutralize the Russians. The Russians were ready to support Serbia against Austria but hoped to do so without causing Germany to join the fray against them. The French hoped for a chance to recover Alsace-Lorraine but looked forward to doing so without setting off a general conflagration. More than one leading German thought Russia’s growing power called for a preemptive war. However, and as Austrian foreign minister Berchtold saw clearly enough, almost to the end people in Berlin hoped to wage it without dragging in France, let alone Britain.
In other words, in almost all capitals it was a question, not of unchaining a general conflict but of taking what was seen as a calculated risk. In the event, the calculations failed. A European war, later known as the Great War, later still as World War I, was the result.
Needless to say, such calculations have always formed the very stuff of which power-politics are made. In many cases they continue to do so still. Are we, then, to conclude that sooner or later they are certain to fail again? One of those who thought so was the noted English historian A. J. P. Taylor (1906-1990). Having spent much of his career studying the numerous diplomatic “crises” that dotted the decades before 1914, almost to the end of his life he remained convinced that, sooner or later, another such crisis would lead to World War III.
A quarter-century after Taylor’s death, there is no point in trying to deny the logic of his argument. Among those who echo it is Christopher Coker in The Improbable War: China, The United States and Logic of Great Power Conflict.
However, there is one critical difference: the world which Taylor, Clark, and so many others describe was a pre-nuclear one. In such a world, whatever fate might await the defeated, there would no question of annihilating most, or even a great part, of the population of the loser. The winner, on his part, might expect to prosper. The introduction and proliferation of nuclear weapons has changed the equation.
As a friend of Russian President Vladimir Putin kindly reminded us just a few weeks ago, with those monsters about another war might very well turn the countries involved, both winners and losers, into radioactive deserts. Judging by the fact that no two nuclear countries have fought each other directly and in earnest since 1945, there is some reason to believe that rulers and commanders are aware of the Damocles’ sword hanging over their collective heads. It seems to have made them much more cautious than they used to be.
It may or may not be true, as some believe, that “the better angels of our nature” are taking over and are responsible for what is sometimes known as “the long peace” which, among the great powers at any rate, has prevailed from 1945 on. Supposing it is, it would represent very good news indeed. Yet even so I propose that a considerable number of H-bombs be kept in reserve ready to deliver a second strike, as nuclear strategists say. Just to make sure that, should the better angels in our dear leaders’ nature fall asleep or go on strike, there will still be fear to keep them from each other’s throats.
About the Author
Martin van Creveld is Professor Emeritus of History at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and one of the world’s most renowned experts on military history and strategy.
The central role of Professor van Creveld in the development of theory about modern war is difficult to exaggerate. He has provided both the broad historical context — looking both forward and back in time — much of the analytical work, and a large share of the real work in publishing both academic and general interest books. He does not use the term 4GW, preferring to speak of “non-trinitarian” warfare — but his work is foundational for 4GW just the same.
Professor van Creveld has written 20 books, about almost every significant aspect of war. Some of the best known are Technology and War: From 2000 B.C. to the Present and Nuclear Proliferation and the Future of Conflict. He’s written books about the technical aspects of war, such as Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton, Training of Officers: From Military Professionalism to Irrelevance, and Air Power and Maneuver Warfare.
He’s written controversial books, such as Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army Performance, 1939-1945 (German soldiers were better than our!) and Men, Women & War: Do Women Belong in the Front Line?.
He’s written some of the most influential books of our generation about war, such as The Transformation of War: The Most Radical Reinterpretation of Armed Conflict Since Clausewitz (which I consider the best work to date about modern war) and The Changing Face of War: Combat from the Marne to Iraq.
His magnum opus is the dense about mind-opening The Rise and Decline of the State – the ur-text describing the political order of the 21st century. For links to his articles see The Essential 4GW reading list: Martin van Creveld.
For More Information
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about history, especially these about WWI…
- The US Army brings us back to the future, returning to WWI’s “cult of the offense”.
- Is Europe primed for chaos, as it was in July 1914?
- A note from the time of WWI, lessons from The Great War for us fighting the Long War.
- Lessons from WWI about “markets” ability to see the future.
A closing note from the lords of the sky
From T. H. White’s The Once and Future King…
“Dear me, you are a silly,” she said. “There are no boundaries among the geese.”
“What are boundaries, please?”
“Imaginary lines on the earth, I suppose. How can you have boundaries if you fly? Those ants
of yours — and the humans too — would have to stop fighting in the end, if they took to the
“I like fighting,” said the Wart. “It is knightly.”
“Because you’re a baby.”
6 thoughts on “The great powers slid into WWI. Martin van Creveld asks if we might do so again.”
What’s new is that we are living in an age of mass migration, possibly unprecedented on a global scale.
American politics are being shaped by our confused response to the influx of Hispanic, Indian and now Chinese immigrants that will lead to far more diversity than the nation has experienced previously. Europe is likely in the early stages of a similar migration resulting in great part from the chaotic wars of the mid-east. Russia, as the largest country (geographically) in the world and largely underpopulated faces similar threats from the Muslim south as well as from China on the east. Southeast Asia seems to be experiencing the early stages of something similar as the population pressures and poverty in Bangladesh intersect with its proximity to far more prosperous neighbors.
It is not difficult to imagine these events drawing the developed countries into conflicts, the nature of which is far from clear.
I agree we are in an age of mass migrations. They are unprecedented in numbers, but perhaps only because the population has grown. There have been periods of mass migration before. Current migration levels into the US, for example, are roughly at peak levels of the past (that’s from memory; I have not checked it).
But no matter if unprecedented or not, this is as you say — the sort of thing that changes the shape of the world.
The real question is whether the MAD principle still holds. Specifically do the US state managers really believe that they can achieve Nuclear Primacy? Will they go to the brink (and beyond) to uphold the Wolfowitz Doctrine which does not allow any other state even regional dominance?
I hope Dr. Creveld is right.
(1) “The real question is whether the MAD principle still holds. Specifically do the US state managers really believe that they can achieve Nuclear Primacy?”
I don’t understand. “Mutual Assured Destruction” means that nobody has “nuclear primacy”.
(2) Will they go to the brink (and beyond) to uphold the Wolfowitz Doctrine which does not allow any other state even regional dominance?”
So far we do not challenge even regional powers once they get nukes (e.g., India and Pakistan). The test will come, as MvC says, with China. I agree with MvC: it is extremely unlikely that we will push a conflict with China “to the brink”, despite the belligerent rhetoric from Washington. Time will tell.
As van Creveld skimmed through the issues leading up to WW I, he wrote 2 paragraphs of history which “rhyme” with what is happening today in Russia’s near abroad:
“What really happened was quite different. Though decision-makers might not be interested in a general war, quite a few of them were prepared to risk a more limited one. In doing so, the model they had in front of their eyes was, naturally enough, the limited “cabinet wars” of the nineteenth century. Serbia, provided only it could obtain Russian and perhaps French support, was quite ready to fight Austria. Certain governing circles in Austria were quite ready, indeed eager, to go to war against Serbia if only they could be certain that Germany would support them and thereby neutralize the Russians. The Russians were ready to support Serbia against Austria but hoped to do so without causing Germany to join the fray against them. The French hoped for a chance to recover Alsace-Lorraine but looked forward to doing so without setting off a general conflagration. More than one leading German thought Russia’s growing power called for a preemptive war. However, and as Austrian foreign minister Berchtold saw clearly enough, almost to the end people in Berlin hoped to wage it without dragging in France, let alone Britain.
In other words, in almost all capitals it was a question, not of unchaining a general conflict but of taking what was seen as a calculated risk. In the event, the calculations failed. A European war, later known as the Great War, later still as World War I, was the result.”
The United States is clearly trying to provoke Russia into openly defending “Little Russia” i.e. that part of Ukraine with Russian language, culture, and historical ties to “the Motherland”, from the Galicians whose people speak a dialect of Russian that is called Ukrainian, and whose people have endured a long history of conflict with Russia at least since the time of Peter the Great. The neocons in the United States are obsessed with world domination, through its globalist capitalist system and a world financial system that is controlled by the United states of America. Russia is the obvious obstacle to that quest for world domination, with China emerging within the next decade or so.
The United States is actively pursuing “proxy wars” against Russia. Economic sanctions, asset seizures, and even the denial of Russian sponsorship of the world cup, are aggravating and exacerbating; but ineffective. However they do goad and infuriate the Russians in a way similar to the dart-throwers in a Spanish Bullfight. Ukraine -in the minds of the malevolent in America- can be even more damaging to Russia than the Afghanistan misadventure was. Even better, it is a war from which Russia cannot withdraw. Russia cannot let its people -people who consider themselves to be Russian as opposed to being Galician (which is what the current government means when it uses the term “Ukrainian”)- suffer endlessly from persecution by the riot-imposed nationalist government in Kiev.
America has had mercenaries and CIA operatives working in Ukraine since November 2013. First, it was to foment, instigate, “advise”, and arm the rioters in Kiev, while the vast majority of Ukrainian people -even in the Galician West- had no desire for a coup d’état. The Ukrainian government since then has functioned as a puppet of the Americans. The appointment of Saakashvili as governor of the Odessa region put to shame any claim otherwise. Ukraine’s puppet parliament has just approved an order by Poroshenko to allow foreign troops to be stationed in Ukraine. They will act as tripwires for a response by the US under the guise of NATO. The Americans are smug and sure that Russia will not act in the face of a buildup of foreign troops inside Ukraine. Why are they so sure?
Now the United States is sending in its “advisors” and is sending lethal arms and offensive weapons through proxy Poland. Air defense artillery and missiles are being deployed around Odessa and Dnepro-Petrovsk. Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine are preparing to occupy Russian enclave Transnistria, where Russian troops are stationed. Officially, at least, permission has been refused to Russian aircraft which have regularly supplied these troops. Once those air defense units are set up, is that the moment when the Ukrainians/Americans actually enforce the blockade of Transnistria? Are Americans so smug and sure that the Russians will surrender in Transnistria rather than fight for them?
At some point in time, a US navy warship will make a port-of-call to Odessa, daring the Russians to blockade the port. What if Russia does? Will America threaten Russia with nuclear weapons? Will America be crazy stupid enough to come to the rescue of its navy without nuclear weapons? The American-Zionist controlled media and all the nations of NATO plus scores of other nations dependent upon the American New World Order will declare Russia as the aggressor. Van Creveld will. Probably the majority of the readers of this website will also.
American neocons -and van Creveld- are so sure that Russia will accept this form of attack upon its historic homeland and vital interests without response because of the nuclear option. I think that they are very wrong. And I think that -no matter which side gets to hold the pen of history when it is over- we are very wrong.
NEO-CONS ARE FIRML IN CHARGE
Obama Sidelines Kerry On Ukraine Policy
“On May 21st, I headlined “Secretary of State John Kerry v. His Subordinate Victoria Nuland, Regarding Ukraine,” and quoted John Kerry’s May 12th warning to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to cease his repeated threats to invade Crimea and re-invade Donbass, two former regions of Ukraine, which had refused to accept the legitimacy of the new regime that was imposed on Ukraine in violent clashes during February 2014. (These were regions that had voted overwhelmingly for the Ukrainian President who had just been overthrown. They didn’t like him being violently tossed out and replaced by his enemies.)
Kerry said then that, regarding Poroshenko, “we would strongly urge him to think twice not to engage in that kind of activity, that that would put Minsk in serious jeopardy. And we would be very, very concerned about what the consequences of that kind of action at this time may be.” Also quoted there was Kerry’s subordinate, Victoria Nuland, three days later, saying the exact opposite, that we “reiterate our deep commitment to a single Ukrainian nation, including Crimea, and all the other regions of Ukraine.” I noted, then that, “The only person with the power to fire Nuland is actually U.S. President Barack Obama.” However, Obama instead has sided with Nuland on this.
Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, bannered, on June 5th, “Poroshenko: Ukraine Will ‘Do Everything’ To Retake Crimea’,” and reported that, “President Petro Poroshenko has vowed to seek Crimea’s return to Ukrainian rule. … Speaking at a news conference on June 5, … Poroshenko said that ‘every day and every moment, we will do everything to return Crimea to Ukraine.’” Poroshenko was also quoted there as saying, “It is important not to give Russia a chance to break the world’s pro-Ukrainian coalition,” which indirectly insulted Kerry for his having criticized Poroshenko’s warnings that he intended to invade Crimea and Donbass.”
MAYBE KERRY BREAKING HIS LEG WAS “AN ACCIDENT ABOUT TO HAPPEN”. hE WILL BE SIDELINED FOR 6 TO 8 WEEKS. wHAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN TO UKRAINE AND iRAN IN THE INTERIM?