The First World War
Feb 14, 2014 11:23:40 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2014 11:23:40 GMT -5
Writing in 'The Radio 3 Forum', aeolium has been discussing books on the First World War which still seems to him to be the greatest man-made tragedy in world history and which spawned many other tragedies, including indirectly the Holocaust.
New Statesman - Understanding the national paranoia that led to the First World War
He hopes in this light that this year's centenary will not focus on a "justifiable war" but at least spend some time examining how it could have been avoided, and how war in the present age is so rarely a solution to anything as politicians still seem to think but often leads to many new problems.
The Radio 3 Forum - Understanding the Origins of the First World War
I am not sure that war is avoidable; conflict seems to me to be part of the human condition. When I was at school, we studied the causes of the First World War, and I read a 1974 book by A J P Taylor on the subject.
Amazon - The First World War: An Illustrated History (Penguin Books)
Addressing the events of 1914, Taylor named the persons who appeared to him to have caused the war single-handed:
As an incurable germanophobe, Taylor said nothing about Sir Edward Grey. In another essay, Taylor argued that it is the fashion nowadays to seek profound causes for great events. But perhaps the war that broke out in 1914 had no profound causes. In July 1914, things went wrong. The only safe explanation is that things happen because they happen. Elsewhere, Taylor reverted to a more conventional standpoint, which explains the great catastrophes of history in terms of a fatal combination of general and specific causes. The profound causes on which other historians had laid such stress, were shown to be an essential element both of the pre-war peace and of the breakdown of peace. Without the specific causes, they were of little consequence.
In other words, there had to be a spark! Wars are much like road accidents, Taylor argued. They have a general and a specific cause at the same time. Every road accident is caused in the last resort by the invention of the internal combustion engine. But the police and the courts do not weigh the profound causes. They seek a specific cause for each accident: driver's error, excessive speed, drunkenness, faulty brakes, bad road surface. So it is with wars.
Recently, we drove across Europe, and managed to avoid any road accidents, if only just. Quite unexpectedly, we also visited many of the sites closely associated with the First World War: Sarajevo, the Kaiservilla in Bad Ischl, the Western Front! I shed a few tears along the way, although I did not feel that the landscape was scarred or even haunted by what happened a century ago. If I may quote T S Eliot directly from 'The Waste Land' (1922):
At the very end of his poem, T S Eliot turns to the Fisher King himself, still on the shore fishing. The possibility of regeneration for the “arid plain” of society has been long ago discarded here in the waste land. Instead, the king will do his best to put in order what remains of his kingdom, and he will then surrender, although he still fails to understand the true significance of the coming void. The burst of allusions at the end of 'The Waste Land' can be read as either a final attempt at coherence or as a final dissolution into a world of fragments and rubbish.
The king offers some consolation: “These fragments I have shored against my ruins,” he says, suggesting that it will be possible to continue on despite the failed redemption. It will still be possible for him, and for Eliot, to “fit you,” to create art in the face of madness. It is important that the last words of the poem are in a non-Western language. Although the meaning of the words themselves communicates resignation (“peace which passeth understanding”), they invoke an alternative set of paradigms to those of the Western world; they offer a glimpse into a culture and a value system new to us—and, thus, offer some hope for an alternative to our own dead world. I can understand why T S Eliot felt like this in the aftermath of the First World War, but what now?
New Statesman - Understanding the national paranoia that led to the First World War
He hopes in this light that this year's centenary will not focus on a "justifiable war" but at least spend some time examining how it could have been avoided, and how war in the present age is so rarely a solution to anything as politicians still seem to think but often leads to many new problems.
The Radio 3 Forum - Understanding the Origins of the First World War
I am not sure that war is avoidable; conflict seems to me to be part of the human condition. When I was at school, we studied the causes of the First World War, and I read a 1974 book by A J P Taylor on the subject.
Amazon - The First World War: An Illustrated History (Penguin Books)
Addressing the events of 1914, Taylor named the persons who appeared to him to have caused the war single-handed:
"The three men who made the decisions, even if they, too, were victims of circumstances, were Berchtold, Bethmann Hollweg and the dead man, Schlieffen."
As an incurable germanophobe, Taylor said nothing about Sir Edward Grey. In another essay, Taylor argued that it is the fashion nowadays to seek profound causes for great events. But perhaps the war that broke out in 1914 had no profound causes. In July 1914, things went wrong. The only safe explanation is that things happen because they happen. Elsewhere, Taylor reverted to a more conventional standpoint, which explains the great catastrophes of history in terms of a fatal combination of general and specific causes. The profound causes on which other historians had laid such stress, were shown to be an essential element both of the pre-war peace and of the breakdown of peace. Without the specific causes, they were of little consequence.
"The very things which are blamed for the war of 1914 - secret diplomacy, the Balance of Power, the great continental armies - also gave Europe a period of unparalleled peace ... It's no good asking 'What factors caused the outbreak of war?'. The question is rather 'Why did the factors that had long preserved the peace of Europe fail to do so in 1914.' "
In other words, there had to be a spark! Wars are much like road accidents, Taylor argued. They have a general and a specific cause at the same time. Every road accident is caused in the last resort by the invention of the internal combustion engine. But the police and the courts do not weigh the profound causes. They seek a specific cause for each accident: driver's error, excessive speed, drunkenness, faulty brakes, bad road surface. So it is with wars.
Recently, we drove across Europe, and managed to avoid any road accidents, if only just. Quite unexpectedly, we also visited many of the sites closely associated with the First World War: Sarajevo, the Kaiservilla in Bad Ischl, the Western Front! I shed a few tears along the way, although I did not feel that the landscape was scarred or even haunted by what happened a century ago. If I may quote T S Eliot directly from 'The Waste Land' (1922):
" ... I sat upon the shore
Fishing, with the arid plain behind me
Shall I at least set my lands in order?
London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down
Poi s’ascose nel foco che gli affina
Quando fiam ceu chelidon—O swallow swallow
Le Prince d’Aquitaine à la tour abolie
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Why then Ile fit you. Hieronymo’s mad againe.
Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata.
Shantih shantih shantih"
Fishing, with the arid plain behind me
Shall I at least set my lands in order?
London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down
Poi s’ascose nel foco che gli affina
Quando fiam ceu chelidon—O swallow swallow
Le Prince d’Aquitaine à la tour abolie
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Why then Ile fit you. Hieronymo’s mad againe.
Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata.
Shantih shantih shantih"
At the very end of his poem, T S Eliot turns to the Fisher King himself, still on the shore fishing. The possibility of regeneration for the “arid plain” of society has been long ago discarded here in the waste land. Instead, the king will do his best to put in order what remains of his kingdom, and he will then surrender, although he still fails to understand the true significance of the coming void. The burst of allusions at the end of 'The Waste Land' can be read as either a final attempt at coherence or as a final dissolution into a world of fragments and rubbish.
The king offers some consolation: “These fragments I have shored against my ruins,” he says, suggesting that it will be possible to continue on despite the failed redemption. It will still be possible for him, and for Eliot, to “fit you,” to create art in the face of madness. It is important that the last words of the poem are in a non-Western language. Although the meaning of the words themselves communicates resignation (“peace which passeth understanding”), they invoke an alternative set of paradigms to those of the Western world; they offer a glimpse into a culture and a value system new to us—and, thus, offer some hope for an alternative to our own dead world. I can understand why T S Eliot felt like this in the aftermath of the First World War, but what now?