I must pick up the threads of Poul Anderson's extremely rich novel, The Boat Of A Million Years. I had reached the point where Hanno proposed to lobby politicians for peace. Concurrently, I was reading a book about Jiddu Krishnamurti, friend of Aldous Huxley. The latter had proposed a peace plan pre-1939. Therefore, I drew a parallel between Hanno and Huxley. I am glad that Huxley tried even if only to prove that such a plan was not going to be accepted at that time! This was my slant on Hanno's reference to lobbying for peace and almost certainly would not have been any other reader's slant. We each bring to bear our own perspectives and other reading but Anderson's works at one point or another raise every such important issue for our consideration.
When I have meditated and recovered from a long drawn out on-line communication with HM Revenue & Customs, I might reread and post a bit more this evening. There is still much to be reread in Boat.
23 comments:
The problem with lobbying for peace is rather like that faced by French socialists/syndicalists in 1914 when they contemplated a general strike against war.
That is, if they did that the Germans would win.
And then the Germans would put them all up against a wall and shoot them, if enraged Frenchman didn't do it first.
Because -German- socialists in the national legislature voted for war credits.
This is another face of the simple formula: it takes two to make peace, but only one to make war.
If someone attacks you, you're at war, whether you like it or not.
The only question then is who -wins-.
NB: for the consequences of defeat, take a look at Berthman-Hollweg's "1914 program", or the Treaties of Brest-Litovsk and Bucharest, which Germany imposed on defeated Russia and Romania. Germany's war aims in WW1 only look good in comparison to Hitler's... and that's not much of a comparison.
Those treaties make the Treaty of Versailles imposed on Germany in 1919 look like a Quaker love-feast, btw.
No argument with any of that.
If I had been there in 1914, I would have wanted an international general strike to prevent war and would have been horrified at the German Social Democrats voting for war credits. They were supposed to be internationalists. I might have wanted to be in a Quaker ambulance service or something like that. There are plenty of positive things that conshies can do during wars. 1939-1945, I suppose I'd have thought it was necessary to fight but with a strong interest in what sort of world was going to come out of it. And would not have wanted what we got: just another carve-up + MAD.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Ha! If the French socialists had been insane enough to paralyze France with a general strike just as war began in 1914 the Germans would have no need to shoot them. Enraged Frenchmen would have lynched the traitors first.
Yes, compared to the treaties imposed on Russia and Romania, Germany got off fairly lightly in the Versailles treaty. I think what really enraged so many in Germany was that the Treaty was dictated, forced on Germany. The Germans were not allowed to at least try to bargain and negotiate, and possibly gain some concessions. A Great Power, Germany, was being treated like a powerless minor little nation like, say, Estonia. That galled and affronted German national pride. Festering anger would inevitably stimulate political radicalism and extremism in the Reich.
Also, let's not forget the Dual Monarchy! The post-war treaties literally tore apart Austria-Hungary limb from limb. Austria became a rather pointless rump state while Hungary lost about 58 percent of her pre-War territory. To this day memories of the "five Alsace-Lorraines" torn from Hungary embitters many Hungarians.
And of course the weak successor states emerging from the wreckage of Austria-Hungary would be no match to either a resurgent Germany or the USSR.
Paul: I am not in the least surprised the German socialists voted for the war credits in 1914. German patriotism and loyalty meant far more to them, when push came to shove, than empty platitudes about the "international brotherhood of workers." And that was true even in Russia, where many socialists loyally supported the war effort. Fortunately for France, the socialists there did not go on strike.
As for WW II, as long as Stalin and the USSR existed the very best we could have hoped for was exactly that, "...another carve-up + MAD." Unless the US was willing to fight the USSR, and drive it back to at least the 1939 borders. And that was not in the cards.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Do you think it was a good thing that the Second International failed to prevent the First World War?
International brotherhood is not an empty platitude. International solidarity brought down Apartheid.
"As long as Stalin and the USSR existed...." Sure. And as long as other imperial powers existed, as well... My preferred outcome would have included workers' opposition overthrowing Stalin in Russia. My preferred history of the twentieth century would have included united German workers' anti-fascist action preventing the Nazis from coming to power. Stalin sabotaged that.
Paul.
Paul: no, I think it was -inevitable- that the Second International failed to prevent the First World War. Because human beings are tribal, and for most people the tribe is "people like me".
Sean: most of the territory taken from Hungary was non-Magyar -- Rumanian, Slovak, Croatian, etc. Prior to 1914, Hungary had a non-Magyar majority, kept down by a highly restricted franchise. It was an explosion waiting to happen.
Inevitable, then at least, almost certainly. The resolution to resist war evaporated as soon as hostilities were declared. Some people do hope and campaign for a different outcome in future.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Stirling replied better than I could have, re the Second International. For normal people one's tribe or nation always comes first. So I continue to dismiss those empty platitudes.
Your preferred outcome re Russia was never going to happen, not after Lenin crushed the Kronstadt uprising. Also, I again deny a few urban workers should decide the fate of a still mostly agricultural and peasant nation.
Mr. Stirling: I only partly agree, most of the territories torn from Hungary had been parts of that nation for centuries, with no one hitherto denying they were rightly parts of Hungary. Also, a big complication is that there were millions of Magyars living in the lost territories. The Serbs, Czechs, and Romanians who tore apart Hungary ended up being saddled with bitterly resentful Magyars.
The problem is eastern Europe is a jumble of many different nationalities. And impossible to sort out neatly and tidily. I think a frustrated French premier, Clemenceau, once exclaimed: "Merde! Must every little language have its own nation?"
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, no. My question to you was not whether that failure of the Second International was inevitable but whether you thought that it was a good thing that the War was not prevented.
"...was never going to happen..." Again, my preference would have been for things to go differently so that that could have happened. I agree workers would have had to cooperate with peasants, not dictate to them.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course it would have been infinitely better for there to have been no WW I.
And many of those Russian peasants might have insisted on both being able to own land and restoring the monarchy. Different ideas and interests from those of even moderate socialists.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes. Urban workers' councils should have cooperated with landing own peasants who would have needed some kind of collective representation. Restoring the monarchy... Well, I don't know how many would insist on that or how feasible it would be. A lot of peasants would have been changing their ideas in times like that.
Paul.
Yeah, the problem there is that this weakens some powers and not others. For example, the pacifist movement in Britain in the 1930's was a major enabler for Hitler. France and Britain only objected to Germany getting what it wanted when they'd been backed into a corner.
Kaor, Paul!
I say "No" to workers councils, or any other irregular/illegal bodies. First, there was the State Duma, parties claiming to represent factory workers should focus on electing to the Duma, under the 1906 Constitution. Second, after Nicholas II's needless abdication, and his brother Michael's conditional abdication, the legal instrument for deciding the form of gov't for Russia was the Constituent Assembly. Which Lenin sent packing after grabbing power.
The Assembly was supposed to represent everybody in Russia, not just factory workers or even peasants. Also, if an astonishing 46 percent of Russians today wants a restoration of the monarchy I'm sure the percentage would be much higher in 1918!
I hope you took note of Stirling's comments on how ineffectual pacifism is in the face of determined aggression.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I advocate neither pacifism nor just any war that the government f my country gets involved in!
Paul.
Sean: well, eastern European nations have grown much more uniform over time, mostly by expelling minorities and especially after WW2.
This actually promotes peace, in the long term. "Good fences make good neighbors", as the poet said.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Most times I would disagree. E.g., Margaret Thatcher was right to defeat Argentina in the Falklands War.
Mr. Stirling: I did have that in the back of my mind, but I was thinking of the WW I period and the immediate post-War years.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But would you have backed Argentina if you'd been an Argentinian?
Paul.
Sean: I'd have considered that winning was exceedingly unlikely, and therefore it was unwise.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Almost certainly, yes. National pride can get in the way of objectivity.
Mr. Stirling: The Argentines had to find that out the hard way!
Ad astra! Sean
Not with me. I just calculate the odds, and unless backed into a corner, don't fight unless the odds favor me. As King Arthur said in the movie, "Run away! Run away!"
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Ha! You would have made a more sensible dictator than the bungling generals then ruling Argentina. Ego, pride, machismo got in the way of objectivity!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: wishful thinking is ubiquitous. I think that "hope" made survival more likely when we were all deeply stupid and had big brow ridges, and survived later. I try hard to be objective. Don't always succeed, but I try.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! We are all of us at risk of succumbing to wishful thinking. Being objective is easier to desire than to achieve.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment