the Fall of the Roman Empire led to the First Dark Ages;
the fall of the Solar Union led to the Second Dark Ages;
the fall of the Stellar Union led to the Third Dark Ages -
- but later there was a Galactic civilization.
In our history:
the first Great Depression, 1873-'96, accelerated imperial rivalries that sparked Word War I;
the second Great Depression, 1929-1939, intensified the Great Powers' economic competition which caused World War II;
the financial crash of 2007-'8 started the still lingering third Great Depression -
- and will there be a subsequent greater civilization?
10 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Unless some evidence is finally produced from Anderson's writings, published or unpublished, to show that "The Chapter Ends" belongs in the Psychotechnic series, I still don't believe that story belongs with that timeline.
And I am still skeptical of ECONOMICS alone playing that much of a role in the events leading up to both WW I and WW II.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I read a list of three Great Depressions so I decided to compare them with Anderson's three Dark Ages.
I am hard put to find reasons other than economic for World Wars. States exist to maintain the status quo which, in practical and material terms, means to defend property and the means of creating wealth. Empires defended their colonies as sources of raw materials and as places of production. If there were a part of the Earth where nothing could be grown or made, which was not part of a trade route and which had no strategic significance, then no one would claim it or fight for it whereas, if oil were to be found there, then every empire or Great Power would try to grab it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except, in 1914, there was little strong DESIRE for a war among the Great Powers. Even Wilhelm II, for all his loud talk, was not in the least militaristic when push came to shove during the Sarajevo Crisis. He did as much as any one man in a similar position could do to damp down the risk of war. It was a series of small miscalculations among a small group of leaders in the UK, France, Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia for that crisis to explode into war. Plus, of course, the complications caused by the system of alliances then existing in Europe.
Examples I can think of being a very tired and old Francis Joseph of Austria-Hungary accepting the draft of that dangerously harsh ultimatum sent to Belgrade. And another was Wilhelm II prematurely leaving Berlin to watch a naval review when he mistakenly thought the crisis had been safely defused. No, what INDIVIDUALS do or not do also matters.
Considering how none of the Powers wanted a war 1914, it's enough to remind me of how Stirling had his Shadowspawn and their strategically placed renfields subtly sabotaging these attempts to keep the peace. And, granted, there were people in France, the Habsburg Empire, Russia, etc., who wanted a war. But I don't want to succumb to conspiracy theories nonsense!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There are proximate causes and what is the other kind? A fire starts BOTH because someone lights and march or strikes a spark AND because there is a lot of combustible material piled up.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And there were so many times in July 1914 for that match not to be lit that it would have needed only one person at the right time and time to have stopped that march towards war.
Ad astra! Sean
There are necessary and sufficient causes. There were plenty of -necessary- causes for WW1; nationalism, the rival blocs, etc.
They'd been around for a while; there were many diplomatic clashes and threats of war. But until 1914, no war between the Great Power alliances.
The sufficient causes were political and specific. Many random events had to fall just right, and at the right time to produce the war we actually got.
Eg., Franz Ferdinand had to be removed -- he was heir to the throne, had a great deal of power over foreign policy in Austria-Hungary's setup, and he was unalterably opposed to any war with Russia.
And this had to happen at a time when Germany's military leaders were willing to fight a war, in fact anxious to do so, before Russia became too strong.
So the assassination was not only essential to the war, but it was essential that it happen at a specific time -- in a window between 1913 (when the German generals started getting really apprehensive about Russia) and 1916 (which was the date they thought Russia would be too strong to beat).
A number of other things had to happen too -- the Anglo-German naval rivalry, for example, which was a decision made by Wilhelm himself, and not out of any strategic plan but for personal reasons of, essentially, resentment, envy and wounded pride. (The German army never wanted it an thought it was a waste of money better spent on them.)
The naval race was essential to the Anglo-French rapprochement, and the later one with Russia. Those were Britain's main imperial rivals -- the German colonial empire was a midget, no threat to Britain, and did not menace any essential British interest the way the Russians did in China and India.
So the necessary causes did not, in any real sense, "cause" the war. They just made it -possible-. Specific actions/decisions, and their unpredictable interactions, gave us the actual events of 1914.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Many thanks for basically fleshing out and making more concrete what I had in mind.
Your remarks about how some German military leaders thought a war with Russia would be necessary before 1916 interested me. I recall you saying some of the dispatches relating to the Sarajevo Crisis and Wilhelm II's attempts to damp it down were actually diverted or delayed from reaching him. Which I find shocking and nearly treasonous!
But I hope none of the Germans had anything to do with Francis Ferdinand's assassination. Even if they thought his death would have been useful.
Yes, that foolish naval race did needlessly alienate the UK from Germany, and was a bad mistake. No argument there. If Germany HAD to build up her navy, devoting some of those to making more and better submarines would have been more profitable.
As you said, the "necessary" causes did not cause WW I, they made the war POSSIBLE.
Ad astra! Sean
Socrates was the wisest man in Greece because he knew that he knew nothing.
I am the wisest man in Britain.
Sean: to be fair to the generals, Wilhelm was a notorious "weathercock" -- he tended to agree to the last man to talk to him, and he was famous for provoking a crisis and then chickening out at the last minute. That had badly hurt his prestige, particularly in military and right-wing circles. They wouldn't have dared isolate and manipulate him otherwise, or say ten years earlier.
And Wilhlem was also notorious for sudden flights of inspiration.
In 1914, just before the declarations of war, he had a flash of quite genuine brilliance: to avoid attacking Belgium, stand on the defensive against France thus keeping Britain out of the war, which would probably have worked and which would have almost certainly won the war.
It would have worked even better if he hadn't had a similar flash of "brilliance" about Germany needing a battle-fleet.
von Molkte had a minor heart attack when Wilhelm broke this one to him, because it would ruin the schedules that were already shipping millions of men towards the Belgian border.
By this time, everyone was used to the Kaiser's flashes producing nothing but chaos and foulups, though. His good ones got lost in his bad ones.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Again, very interesting comments! And what you said about Wilhelm II makes it all the more regrettable that he wasn't a steadier, more CONSISTENT man. Because being like that would make it more likely for his better ideas to be effective.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment