What caused the outbreak of World War One?

[Dunenewt]

Yes - that was one of the most shameful moments in the history of socialism. To have so many socialists betray the cause of internationalism was utterly disgraceful. It's a good thing that at least some socialists stuck to their principles, like the German Spartacists or the Russian Bolsheviks.

I don't know... a collapse of Tsarist Russia in the 1900s could have easily triggered a German and Austrian invasion, thereby leading to a world war anyway.

Would you not say that the Mensheviks would have been the better option in power though?

[Tatar Khan]

Not really - or rather, not any more. Corporations are increasingly able to rely on private security forces (a.k.a. "contractors") to enforce their will. And they can also use their economic power to bully or blackmail small countries into doing their bidding, at least in the Third World.

Please provide examples of blackmail. The problem with security forces of the corporations and national military forces is that dying for your country and dying for your company is not the same things and so no matter how strong you security force it will not stand there and die.

Corporations require support of the governments in other countries to be able to plead their case to them and get some kind of sanctions against the country. (ex. Venezuela and Exxon Mobile.)

The whole point of having a loose organization is that you are decentralized; you do not have a single headquarters that can be captured or destroyed. Even if perfect order was established in Afghanistan or Iraq, Al-Qaeda would still be able to survive.

But it would be constantly hunted. You can not grow big without a safe house to stay in. Afghanistan was great for Al-Qaeda as it provided that safe house since Taliban did not care about Al-Qaeda.

However, China shows no signs of wanting to take over the role of global hegemon from the United States. Certainly there could be a global conflict between the US and China in the next few decades, if the Chinese ruling class wants it. But for the moment they seem content with growing their economy and establishing trade relations with the rest of the world. China might soon have the power to challenge the US, but I do not think they have the will to do it.

It has no choice it is rolling towards it like a snowball. And it is bucking US already, every single UN security council resolution is passed after China and Russia are appeased enough.

African nations are turning towards China due to cheaper products and aid that it can provide as an alternative to Western world. To secure that aid African nations will begin to align their foreign policy closer to China to keep it happy. Also a strong trade relations could make African nations open their ports for service of China's military vessels (Somalia is already ready for that, plus that was also a country of choice for Soviet navy back in the day). This is necessary to keep the fleet in all world's oceans.

China at the same time is supporting "new socialism" movement in Latin America that is openly opposing US. Whether China is doing this consciously or not doesn't matter it is starting the challenge.

I don't expect this to become like Cold War with propaganda flying against each other (although there is a possibility that it could be like that).

[Anathema]

The industrialists were the ones who empowered their political leadership in the first place, and they were the ones driving the global contest for domination between the European powers in the pre-WW1 period (particularly in the Scramble for Africa and other attempts to secure markets and resources around the world).

It's true that the capitalists were not the immediate cause of the war. They did not go to their respective governments to suggest that a war should be started. But they created the international tensions that made the war possible.

In the period between the mid-19th century and 1945 it was quite common for capitalists to empower strong nationalist governments in the hope that such governments would do their bidding, only to have the nationalists get out of control and start a war. That is what happened in the years preceding WW1, and that is also what happened with Hitler. After the Nazi gamble backfired so spectacularly, with Hitler running completely out of control all over Europe, most Western capitalists gave up on that strategy. Regional conflicts can be very profitable, but world wars tend to be really bad for business.

At first somebody in the political structure must have the idea that they ought to prepare for war. It's not as if a country will fully nationalized industries wouldn't start building arms (by themselves) if they thought they were threatened. Just because they profited from their leaders' paranoia and warmongering doesn't mean that they had a hand in it themself. To use a cliche: "they were just doing their job".

As for the Hitlerian period, industrialists had even less influence under him. The Nazis had a fairly rigid system of economic planning you know, forcing factory owners to do their bidding without actually taking away formal ownership.

I don't know... a collapse of Tsarist Russia in the 1900s could have easily triggered a German and Austrian invasion' date=' thereby leading to a world war anyway.[/color']

I doubt it. Germany and Austro-Hungary might have snagged some of the border (non-russian) territories, might have supported this or that faction in a civil war but they wouldn't have mobilized millions of men for an occupation of all that land. Austro-Hungary was simply to weak and brittle to sustain such a policy; Germany would realize that with to many men out there they'd be exposed to a French attack and wouldn't be all that interested in it anyway.

It's possible that conflict would have risen between France and Germany anyway, resulting in a single front of the west, with the British (and Commonwealth countries) joining in the frey. I doubt though that France would have been foolhardy enough to think that they could take on Germany by themselves, and Germany didn't really have a reason to start a fight with France except as a preemtive strike before taking on the Russians. The only way I could see a world war happening in such a scenario is a premeditated plan of attack by the French and British together, wich would be awkward.

[Edric O]

It depends on what business you're running, and many argue that WWII brought the US economy back up. I don't necessarily think that: just pointing out others views. WWI certainly didn't help Germany. In fact it crushed their economy and social moral to the extend that they were ready to listen to any strong leader with a plan to put the nation back together...

Good point. You are right about WW2 being beneficial to the US economy - but that's because the US did not suffer any of the destruction caused by the war. So I suppose a world war can be good for business, but only for those businesses that are not in the way of all the fighting.

Would you not say that the Mensheviks would have been the better option in power though?

Absolutely not. The Mensheviks were a curious example of a political party that intentionally made itself weak and ineffective. They were socialists of a more-or-less Marxist type, but they believed that Russia was not yet ready for socialism because it had not yet gone through the capitalist stage of development. They fully expected a liberal capitalist revolution against the feudal Tsarist system, and they were quite surprised when it turned out that socialist parties like themselves had a good chance of coming to power. The Bolsheviks were surprised too, but they wanted to govern; the Mensheviks wanted to stay in opposition for another decade or two. Therefore, if power had been thrust upon them, they would have either become a liberal capitalist party or they would have been paralysed by indecision.

Please provide examples of blackmail.

Brazil. Bolivia. Possibly Ecuador and Nicaragua. Every country with a leftist government that had to back down on its promises to the people under threat from the corporations that they would pull the plug on the country's economy if they were not allowed to exploit workers as before.

The problem with security forces of the corporations and national military forces is that dying for your country and dying for your company is not the same things and so no matter how strong you security force it will not stand there and die.

True, but most Third World governments don't inspire a lot of patriotism in their citizens or soldiers either, and corporate security forces can be better armed.

Corporations require support of the governments in other countries to be able to plead their case to them and get some kind of sanctions against the country. (ex. Venezuela and Exxon Mobile.)

They don't require such support, they just like it whenever they can get it. Exxon-Mobil is more than capable of dealing with Venezuela without the backing of any government. Wal-Mart's revenue is larger than the GDPs of most countries.

But it would be constantly hunted. You can not grow big without a safe house to stay in. Afghanistan was great for Al-Qaeda as it provided that safe house since Taliban did not care about Al-Qaeda.

There are plenty of unstable regions in the world where Al-Qaeda could take refuge, and it can also establish itself quite well in countries with stable but weak or corrupt governments. And being hunted doesn't mean you can't grow; in fact Al-Qaeda is arguably growing right now despite being hunted very intensely.

It has no choice it is rolling towards it like a snowball.

What makes you think that? I mean, what makes you think that (a) Chinese trade relations will develop into political or military alliances, and that (b) Chinese expansion will strengthen the Chinese government rather than Chinese corporations?

I don't expect this to become like Cold War with propaganda flying against each other (although there is a possibility that it could be like that).

The Cold War was a conflict between two ideologically opposed superpowers with rival economic systems who had their own separate spheres of influence and did not trade with each other.

By contrast, China and the US have similar economic systems and trade with each other a lot.

At first somebody in the political structure must have the idea that they ought to prepare for war. It's not as if a country will fully nationalized industries wouldn't start building arms (by themselves) if they thought they were threatened. Just because they profited from their leaders' paranoia and warmongering doesn't mean that they had a hand in it themself. To use a cliche: "they were just doing their job".

First of all, bear in mind that in the late 19th and early 20th century there was virtually no distinction between politicians and industrialists (particularly in Germany, though you must also add landowners - the junkers - into the equation). These were not two different groups of people with separate interests. They were the same people. The same people that owned most of the industry also ran their respective countries (or their friends and relatives did). Industrialists had a direct involvement in politics.

Also, it was widely believed at the time that a country's economic prosperity depended on it controlling vast geographical areas, establishing privileged trade relations with those areas in order to strengthen national industry, and denying other countries' companies access to those areas. This was the rationale behind the creation of colonial empires; it was also to an extent the rationale behind WW1, and it was later adopted by Hitler to create his concept of lebensraum, so it also served as a cause of WW2. This whole idea is based on the principle that governments should act to secure the interests of their largest companies, and it was greatly encouraged by the industrialists.

As for the Hitlerian period, industrialists had even less influence under him. The Nazis had a fairly rigid system of economic planning you know, forcing factory owners to do their bidding without actually taking away formal ownership.

It was only "rigid" in those industries the Nazis considered vital for re-armament and the war effort, and their owners made very large profits from the arrangement.

But it is true that German industrialists did not get what they bargained for from the Nazis. This does not change the fact that they funded the Nazis and helped them rise to power. It just shows that the industrialists were rather stupid to trust Hitler. Like I said, capitalists put their hopes in fascism but were bitterly disappointed when the fascists evaded their control.

[Tatar Khan]

True, but most Third World governments don't inspire a lot of patriotism in their citizens or soldiers either, and corporate security forces can be better armed.

Corporations can not put armies in thousands strong in the country. So here armaments might not play much of a role.

They don't require such support, they just like it whenever they can get it. Exxon-Mobil is more than capable of dealing with Venezuela without the backing of any government. Wal-Mart's revenue is larger than the GDPs of most countries.

True their revenues are higher than some countries's GDPs but how would they go about dealing with the different governments without backing of other governments?

What makes you think that? I mean, what makes you think that (a) Chinese trade relations will develop into political or military alliances, and that (b) Chinese expansion will strengthen the Chinese government rather than Chinese corporations?

Chinese sovereignty funds have clear political objectives behind them. When you are a large trader which can provide goods and services more competitively than the other guys you carry the political power to say what you want the country to do for their good luck (trade at preferential arrangements) to continue. Simple examples Ukraine and Russia had preferential agreement on natural gas. Ukraine starts to bad mouth Russia, the preferential agreement goes away. Finally, Chinese government by law is the largest 50%+ shareholder of all the Chinese corporations and any corporations located on their soil.

The Cold War was a conflict between two ideologically opposed superpowers with rival economic systems who had their own separate spheres of influence and did not trade with each other.

By contrast, China and the US have similar economic systems and trade with each other a lot.

Cold War term was by me used to describe non-shooting war between major adversaries.

[cnc95fan]

Just to show you what retarded stuff goes on in the Renegade forums, I decided to make a poll similar to this...

Don't click it you don't want to see an avarage IQ which is a negitive number

[Dunenewt]

That was some pretty intellectual debate going on there.

[Egeides]

Newt, you haven't posted your essay (if you're still in the mood)

[Edric O]

Corporations can not put armies in thousands strong in the country. So here armaments might not play much of a role.

I'm not sure about the numerical strength of "private contractors" in Iraq (aka corporate mercenaries), but they have proven to be quite an effective and ruthless fighting force, and they are in charge of the protection of many important targets, from government officials to corporate officials to oil installations. Corporations have also been recruiting private mercenaries to defend their interests in Africa; particularly in the oil fields of Nigeria.

True their revenues are higher than some countries's GDPs but how would they go about dealing with the different governments without backing of other governments?

It goes something like this: "You do as we say, or we use our massive economic power, market share and key assets to do serious damage to your national economy."

Chinese sovereignty funds have clear political objectives behind them. When you are a large trader which can provide goods and services more competitively than the other guys you carry the political power to say what you want the country to do for their good luck (trade at preferential arrangements) to continue. Simple examples Ukraine and Russia had preferential agreement on natural gas. Ukraine starts to bad mouth Russia, the preferential agreement goes away.

Yes, that is perfectly true, and the point I was making above is that many corporations today are powerful enough to do the exact same thing that you describe.

Finally, Chinese government by law is the largest 50%+ shareholder of all the Chinese corporations and any corporations located on their soil.

Hmmm, I didn't know that. Are you sure?

Cold War term was by me used to describe non-shooting war between major adversaries.

Well, then you are talking about something more similar to the Great Power rivalries of old - for example the relationship between Britain and Germany prior to WW1. I can see that type of situation developing between China and the US. But it cannot be as intense, far-reaching and all-consuming as the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union.

[Dunenewt]

To what extent can the European State System be blamed for the outbreak of the First World War?

In this essay I will attempt to explain why the European State System was responsible for the First World War.  The war that was widely seen as the first major global conflict was long in the making.  The outbreak of war cannot be attributable to one single event, such as the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip, or even the mobilisation of either German or Russian forces after those events.  It is necessary to look much further back in history to uncover the reasons for the war.

After the Treaty of Vienna in 1815, the great powers in Europe were France, Prussia, Russia, the Austrian Empire , and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland . The European State System pre-1914 was ignoring any wish for self determination.  Such peoples as the Poles did not have nation-states for themselves, despite having so in the past.  Nationalism was a concept that had largely been ignored in the early part of the 19th Century, as whole groups of people and their territories that could be defined as their nations were passed between the great powers.  The concept of nationalism had been largely ignored as the great powers wished to control the lands of Europe between them, whether these lands contained people traditionally part of their nation or not.  States like the Ottoman Empire contained many peoples from different nationalities.  For example, the Austrian Empire contained Germans, Magyars, and Croats, as well as others.  It was not in the interest of the Austrian Empire to promote nationalism and allow it to flourish. Self-preservation, i.e. keeping the state as strong as it was, was essential for the Austro-Hungary, and indeed all the great powers if they were to remain as powerful as each other.  This was important because up until the end of the 19th Century, there were no proper alliances between the Great Powers, and to keep the balance of power they had to be strong militarily in order to be an attractive alliance prospect. 

The first major state to feel the affects of nationalism would be the Ottoman Empire, which would have to deal with Greek nationalists, and towards the end of the century, Montenegrins, Serbians, Rumanians and Bulgarians .  These nationalist movements were the downfall of the Ottoman Empire, and became too strong to control.  The Great Powers looked to exploit the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire for their own gains.  The Russians promoted Bulgarian nationalism, as they had done earlier in the century with the Polish, aiming to create a state which would be an extension of Russian influence.  The Austro-Hungarians gained land where the Ottomans lost it in the Balkans, through deals.  This is especially important as while there was an independent Serbian state in 1914, parts of what was associated with the Serbian nation  were under the control of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and irredentist feelings amongst Serbians led to the assassination of the Archduke.  Although mono-causality can be dismissed for the First World War, the suppression of nationalism was the spark that finally ignited the powder keg of the Balkans, which triggered the outbreak of war. 

Maintaining the Balance of Power was essential for the Great Powers.  As there were no lasting formal alliances, each Great Power attempted to be as powerful as the next.  Various alliances were formed to meet different goals in the 100 years before the First World War, such as the Quadruple Alliance (1834) , or the Holy Alliance , however Prussia went to war with its supposed allies Austro-Hungary, and despite a period of