BRADLEY R. GITZ: 100 years after disaster

The year 2018 represents the 100th anniversary of the end of perhaps the worst calamity to visit mankind--the Great War (we didn't call it World War I until we had a second that the consequences of the first did so much to cause).

The Great War was especially tragic because it was stumbled into by the European powers without any clear goals and no sense of the horrors that were waiting ahead. The only "accidental war" that I'm aware of killed 18 million people.

Because Europe had enjoyed a century of relative peace between Waterloo and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, political leaders and military strategists had no conception of how bloody war in the industrial age could be (the American Civil War might have provided some useful lessons, but European elites were too arrogant to learn from the rubes across the Atlantic).

Military strategy would therefore take several years to adapt, as human wave attacks were mowed down by machine guns and the fields of northern France came to resemble the denuded surface of the moon.

War would lose any semblance of allure or romance after Passchendaele and the Somme, and Europeans, after such senseless slaughter, would never view the idea of "progress" the same way again.

The United States, with a population of more than 310 million, has suffered slightly more than 7,000 battle deaths since the beginning of the wars in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). The French, with a population of just 40 million, lost 27,000 on just one day in August 1914.

Despite a century's worth of scholarly investigation, the causes of World War I remain obscure; the consequences, including the instillation of a lingering historical pessimism, are, however, still with us.

The most obvious of those consequences was the notorious Versailles Settlement, with its treatment of a defeated Germany the result of frustrating compromise at Paris between Woodrow Wilson's goal of a non-punitive peace and France's desire to undo the handiwork of Bismarck and dismember its hated rival altogether.

The result was the worst possible kind of peace treaty--sufficiently damaging to provoke a German desire for revenge, but not damaging enough to prevent the Germans from later pursuing that desire.

The seeds of World War II were therefore sown on that day in November 1918 when a young Austrian corporal in hospital after a poison gas attack heard the crushing news that the Kaiser had abdicated and a new German government (Weimar) had sued for peace; that Germany had suddenly lost the war he had so confidently believed it would win just a few months earlier.

Wilson had promised upon America's belated but decisive entry into the conflict that we were fighting a "war to end all wars" and "to make the world safe for democracy."

To be sure, the outcome of the Great War finished off what was left of European autocracy, in the form of the German, Austrian, Russian and Ottoman dynasties. But democracy wouldn't be the beneficiary, as the number of democratic states would actually be cut in half by the late 1930s.

Rather, the outcome of the war left crucial parties--not just Germany, but also Italy and Japan, the future Axis--profoundly dissatisfied with the post-war global order and determined to undermine it.

In the place of archaic monarchies there sprouted aggressive and vastly more powerful totalitarian regimes, built on profoundly anti-Democratic ideologies like fascism, National Socialism, and Marxism-Leninism.

The war didn't just provoke the rise of Mussolini and Hitler; it also gave us communism in the form of the Bolshevik Revolution and eventually, after the thug Vladimir Lenin's death, Joseph Stalin's murderous Soviet Union.

If the Cold War can be viewed as World War III, albeit fought largely through different means, it can be properly said to have begun with a midnight seizure of power by a ruthless band of ideologues in Petrograd in October 1917.

The Great War thus set us on the path toward virtually all of the horrors that followed--dekulakization in the Ukraine, the Holocaust, the Rape of Nanking, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, followed by nearly a half-century of Cold War that featured a dangerous nuclear arms race, superpower confrontations in places like Cuba, and wearying proxy conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.

With hindsight, the two world wars should probably be more properly viewed as a single European "civil war," with a tenuous two-decade-long cease fire between episodes. Indeed, the further we move through time, the more the two conflicts get crushed together, and the causes of the second seem to flow even more directly from the results of the first.

Perhaps the biggest "what if" in the bloody 20th century is what if Gavrilo Princip had missed his targets a second time that June day in 1914 in Sarajevo.

Steven Pinker's new book Enlightenment Now represents a plea for perspective and seeks to convince us that life is better than ever--to, in essence, restore our faith in the idea of "progress" derived from the Enlightenment.

That he feels the need to make that argument, and that it is such a tough sell in so many respects, is because of what the Great War unleashed.


Freelance columnist Bradley R. Gitz, who lives and teaches in Batesville, received his Ph.D. in political science from the University of Illinois.

Editorial on 03/12/2018


BOLTAR says...

Congratulations on writing a piece that is not focused on race baiting.

Posted 12 March 2018, 7:47 a.m. Suggest removal

lohr52 says...

Another excellent thought provoking column.

Posted 12 March 2018, 8:30 a.m. Suggest removal

PopMom says...


My thoughts exactly. He probably is starting to realize that he could lose his job at Lyon if he keeps it up.

Posted 12 March 2018, 9:59 a.m. Suggest removal

GeneralMac says...

Great informative article !

Posted 12 March 2018, 10 a.m. Suggest removal

mrcharles says...

With a thoughtful thought on Steven Pinker, perhaps BRG had a lucid moment by following up with "progress" derived from the Enlightenment- something he usually is aginnn!

The divine right of kings was replaced by the divine right of nations to be ruled by those who were just as convinced they were divine kings, in fact one was a g-d.

I would also note that his leaving out of the role of the church established, they say, by the deity who created his own mother , in the rise of fascism as a response to the bolsheviks was a glaring error. I will submit that the first treaty of both the reich and il duce was with the vatican- another sad chapter in its history of mammals who think they are special.

Posted 12 March 2018, 10 a.m. Suggest removal

Illinoisroy says...

deja vu

Posted 12 March 2018, 1:10 p.m. Suggest removal

hah406 says...

Gitz, you wrote a very nice piece today. Quite historically accurate in that the end of the Great War practically made WW2 predetermined. Spend more time writing on political history like this and I will put you back in my "fun to read" category. Gold star for today.

Posted 12 March 2018, 1:23 p.m. Suggest removal

GeneralMac says...

As part of the treaty, Germany could not have troops on the other side of the river.

In a documentary I listened to it stated around late 1930's Hitler deliberately sent troops across the river and gave them orders to set up camp so France would notice.
If France took action, they were to retreat immediately and NOT engage French troops.

France observed and did NOTHING !

It was stated Adolph Hitler smiled and said..........." ah, ha "

Posted 12 March 2018, 1:52 p.m. Suggest removal

GeneralMac says...

Boltar, I never observed " race baiting" in Gitz's columns.

The last real race baiting was from a hate group Black Lives Matter.

Posted 12 March 2018, 1:54 p.m. Suggest removal

TimberTopper says...

mac the imposter, just as I thought, you are burdened with brain farts regularly.

Posted 12 March 2018, 3:18 p.m. Suggest removal

WhododueDiligence says...

This is a good column on the everlasting significance of WW1 which as Gitz says is perhaps the greatest calamity ever to visit mankind. And as Gitz says, it allowed the cutthroat Bolsheviks to gain control of war-ravaged Russia. A debatable point Gitz made is his statement that the causes of WW1 remain obscure to historians despite scholarly investigation. The causes were highly complex but have been well-researched and understood. Historians disagree on which country or countries should be primarily blamed for starting the war.
A 2014 BBC article titled "10 interpretations of who started WW1" included 2 of 10 historians who blamed all 6 of the usual suspects--Austia-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, Britain, and Serbia--for starting this catastrophic war. Most historians though, as in that interesting article, blame Germany and Austria-Hungry primarily, and it wasn't entirely by accident. High ranking Austria-Hungary military leaders wanted war against Serbia, and high ranking German leaders wanted war against France and Russia. Another somewhat overlooked factor was the power of propaganda which helped push countries, most notably Germany but also the other main participants, into that disastrous war.

Posted 13 March 2018, 10:39 a.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment