To prepare for tomorrow's discussion, you need to post a comment which relates to my post below titled "War is Outdated" (If it is not shown, click on "September" under "Blog Archive"). It can be a response to my post or it can be a response to a comment on that post. Second, you need to post on your blog a question, answer, or thought in reaction to the 4 major discussion questions listed here:
1. What force(s) is(are) driving the MAIN (Militarism, Alliances, Imperialism, Nationalism) causes of WWI?
2. Why did Norman Angell's argument prove to be incorrect?
3. Assess the importance of the Agadir Crisis and the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
4. Why wasn't WWI prevented?
Lastly, read the blog posts of your classmates and comment on their thoughts or answer their question.
If you accomplish the above, tomorrow should be an incredible discussion in which all of you have answers to the questions and will have much to say. I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
War is Outdated
Norman Angell claimed in 1910 that a European war would be avoided because no nation would have anything to gain and everything to lose. It makes logical sense. I have always thought that there would be no World War III for the same reason; everyone would lose. When you closely examine the events leading up to World War I, you see that most political leaders believed that a world-wide war would not benefit their respective countries or empires. So why did war occur over an issue of relatively minor importance?
World War I was an entirely irrational war. It makes no sense. This got me to thinking; in the 20th and 21st century, are any wars "rational" or "logical". I would say "no". Wars of the past century as well as wars of the present are no longer rational, they are no longer in anyone's best interest. Do we fight wars today for resources? If so, is war the only, or the most effective, means of acquiring resources? It seems that too many resources are used for war and for militarism, which generates problems rather than solutions. A more rational approach seems to be one that considers that the entire planet will have to deal with the same issues of scarcity of food, water, as well as dwindling sources of energy, not to mention environmental decay. If we all have these same basic challenges, it would benefit everyone to try to work together to solve them through trade and technological innovation. This may sound completely unrealistic, I know, but it is definitely rational and logical.
World War I was an entirely irrational war. It makes no sense. This got me to thinking; in the 20th and 21st century, are any wars "rational" or "logical". I would say "no". Wars of the past century as well as wars of the present are no longer rational, they are no longer in anyone's best interest. Do we fight wars today for resources? If so, is war the only, or the most effective, means of acquiring resources? It seems that too many resources are used for war and for militarism, which generates problems rather than solutions. A more rational approach seems to be one that considers that the entire planet will have to deal with the same issues of scarcity of food, water, as well as dwindling sources of energy, not to mention environmental decay. If we all have these same basic challenges, it would benefit everyone to try to work together to solve them through trade and technological innovation. This may sound completely unrealistic, I know, but it is definitely rational and logical.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)