Eliminating War?

 

Today is the 100th anniversary of the armistice, ending fighting in the Great War. It is the concluding centennial observance of a war that started in 1914, with the United States of American entering the war in 1917. Entering the war, there was talk of ending the threat of German militarism, ascendent since the Franco-Prussian War. In the face of the industrialized slaughter, the horror of the trenches, and with faith in man’s ability to mold more perfect institutions not yet confronted with the far larger horrors to come, people dreamed of a lasting peace. The phrase capturing these aspirations was “the war to end all wars.”

We see now, as the people, who first heard those words, knew by the 1930s, that the phase is as mockingly empty as the ancient cry, recorded in Genesis 11:4

“Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.” (NIV)

Technology was supposed to offer such deterrence, as to prevent war. Alfred Nobel is claimed to have sought an explosive so terrible as to ensure mutual annihilation of those who dared use it.

According to the Austrian countess Bertha von Suttner, Alfred Nobel, as early as their first meeting in Paris in 1876, had expressed his wish to produce material or a machine which would have such a devastating effect that war from then on, would be impossible. The point about deterrence later appeared among Nobel’s ideas. In 1891, he commented on his dynamite factories by saying to the countess: “Perhaps my factories will put an end to war sooner than your congresses: on the day that two army corps can mutually annihilate each other in a second, all civilised nations will surely recoil with horror and disband their troops.” Nobel did not live long enough to experience the First World War and to see how wrong his conception was.

Perhaps that vision was imperfectly realized in the hydrogen bomb and the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, yet war went on under the nuclear umbrellas.

Expertly designed institutions were supposed to save humanity from future slaughter. The Weimar Republic and the League of Nations were the institutions thought to represent the very best minds, after World War I. The League of Nations was ardently advanced by an American president, Woodrow Wilson, who had risen from academia. There he had written “The Study of Administration,” providing justification for taking governance, out of the hands, of what his class considered the ignorant masses, into the hands of technocrats—like himself. Read these 27 clearly written pages, and you will see the height of his ambition for the better ruling of the world.

The United States Senate was not so enthralled, with the idea, of a super-sized mutual defense entity, that could drag America back into wars, not of their choosing.

On September 16, Senator Lodge called up the treaty for consideration of the full Senate. On November 15, the chamber was still considering the treaty when, for the first time in its history, the Senate voted to invoke cloture–or cut off debate–on the treaty. Four days later, the Senate took up Senator Lodge’s resolution of ratification, which included fourteen reservations to the treaty. The Lodge resolution failed on a 39-55 vote. The Senate then considered a resolution to approve the treaty without reservations of any kind, which failed on a 38-53 vote. After 55 days of debate, the Senate had rejected the Treaty of Versailles.

The Weimar Republic was constructed by men who were the product of German universities, then seen as leaders in all manner of science, including “political science.” The Weimar Constitution was, on its face, a remarkable achievement:

This constitution made the Weimar Republic one of the most democratic and liberal political systems of its time. It provided for universal suffrage, contained a limited bill of rights and offered a proportional method of electing the Reichstag.

Yet, both the Weimar Republic and the League of Nations failed. The Germans were not done with making their way in the world by military, rather than commercial, force. Nor were other nations done with enlarging their territories or spheres of influence by force, or the threat of force.

And so, the “war to end all wars” became a bitter joke. And the disillusionment, in the seemly vain loss of so many, may have signaled weakness to those spoiling for a rematch. Yet, that disillusionment was not necessarily the whole truth of public opinion. See this remarkable BBC presentation, The Long Shadow: Europe After World War One, for a remarkably objective presentation of how this played out in Great Britain.

At a century’s distance, our views are conditioned by the eventful intervening years. Yet, on this occasion, it is right and proper to stop and acknowledge the enormous sacrifices and the heroes, known and unknown to many. We humans may never eliminate war, but pray that we never fall, lurch, or march into such butchery, such wholesale killing of one another, again.

Published in Group Writing
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 33 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    I recommend C.S. Lewis, specifically God in the Dock, which is a collection of his essays. The essay that I quoted above is from this collection. They are political essays, but I think that they may be well-grounded as you specify.

    I’ve read the God in the Dock collection at least twice, and I highly recommend it, but I’m interested in works that give as many historical examples and illustrations as possible.

    Schaeffer’s “How Then Shall We Live” may be helpful.

    I’ve read that, too, and probably still have it on my bookshelf along with others of his books. It does have some historical illustrations, but I’m interested in one that goes more into specifics. Fussy, aren’t I?

    I’ve learned about the following three by doing a search:

    J.B. Bury. 1920. The Idea of Progress: An Inquiry into Its Origin and Growth

    Charles Van Doren. 1967. The Idea of Progress.

    Robert Nisbet. 1980. History of the Idea of Progress.

    I don’t know if they have what I’m looking for, but if not, maybe they’ll lead me to it.  Has anyone here read any of them?

     

     

     

    The Idea of Progress: An Inguiry into Its Origin and Growth by J. B. Bury

    • #31
  2. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    I recommend C.S. Lewis, specifically God in the Dock, which is a collection of his essays. The essay that I quoted above is from this collection. They are political essays, but I think that they may be well-grounded as you specify.

    I’ve read the God in the Dock collection at least twice, and I highly recommend it, but I’m interested in works that give as many historical examples and illustrations as possible.

    Schaeffer’s “How Then Shall We Live” may be helpful.

    I’ve read that, too, and probably still have it on my bookshelf along with others of his books. It does have some historical illustrations, but I’m interested in one that goes more into specifics. Fussy, aren’t I?

    Paul Johnson’s Modern Times would give you more specifics (it’s less theological in nature).

    Thanks for mentioning that. I’m not a Paul Johnson fan, but that’s based on reading only one of his world history books, and I don’t remember for sure which one. This one would probably be worth looking at. 

    • #32
  3. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Hard enough eliminating disorder in our houses, imagine thinking you could eliminate war.


    This conversation is part of our Group Writing Series under November’s theme of Elimination. There are plenty of dates still available. Perhaps someone will even offer a page from the diary of a hitman, purely fictional of course. Or maybe we will read about eliminating excess inventory. Hmm, inventory control specialist by day, hitman by night? Sounds like a TV drama? What about those ads? You know what I’m talking about—even the Charmin bears! The possibilities are endless, Ricochet cool cats! Why not tell us about it and start a conversation. Our schedule and sign-up sheet awaits. Caveat: Given the theme, please keep in mind the basic rules of R>. As you polish ryour little masterpiece, do ensure that it stays within the refined edge of tacky. As a heads’ up, our December theme will be Veneration. I’ll post the sign-up sheet mid-month.

    • #33
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.