1914, the first true World War begins. Will 2014 be a path to the next?

[Savannahmann]

There had been wars, some fought around the world. The perpetual wars between the French and English were often fought on the seas around the world, one side taking an island, or city, from the other. But the "Great War" that began in 1914 was the first true World War. All of Europe was involved. Japan, Australia, and New Zealand were involved in the very first month. America would come in, but much later, after the fall of Czarist Russia.

There has been much debate about what really caused the war. The assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand was the spark, and that spark was going to happen. If it wasn't a death of an heir, something would have triggered it remains the generally accepted view.

So what caused the war? Interlocking alliances pretty much guaranteed that if one nation went to war, everyone went to war. France was bound to Russia, if either of the was attacked, the other must attack the aggressor immediately. Germany and Austria were linked by similar treaty. Where one went, the other was honor bound to go. England was one of the Guarantors of Belgium Neutrality, if anyone violated that nation, England was honor bound to defend the nation.

But did interlocking alliances cause it by themselves? No, it was also a mentality that existed. The idea that the war would have to be short. Norman Angell wrote a book that was a hit around the world. He was an economist who proved using mathematics that no war could go on long, because of the subsequent economic displacement and damage to the nations involved. The aggressor would be as damaged as the aggressed by a long war. In July 1914, everyone was convinced with a few notable exceptions, that the war simply couldn't last more than a few months, most assumed three or four, pessimists said six months, due to economic concerns.

That mentality exists today. Not in the same form, not exactly. It is a more dangerous mentality. It is called "They wouldn't dare". Last year, we were very nearly in a war in Syria. Russia has one foreign naval base to our many. Their one naval base that exists outside of Russian Territory is in Syria. What would we do if someone threatened a nation in which we had a naval base. We could not tolerate the loss of prestige, the loss of face, the loss of influence. But the press, the politicians, and the pundits all ignored this fact and continued on brushing potential Russian involvement aside with out even considering it. The arrogance of "They Wouldn't Dare" on full display.

Afghanistan is doing everything but telling us flatly that they don't want to sign any agreement to allow American Troops to remain after the withdrawal deadline. Yet our Political Leaders, the pundits, and the "experts" all agree that Afghanistan will sign the agreement. They wouldn't dare act in a way we don't want them to.

Look at every story, every continuing long term story, and you can find the attitude even if the words are absent. The defenders of the NSA/CIA/DHS/FBI intelligence gathering/spying nonsense all assure us that they are not abusing the power, just storing it for another day when it might be useful. They wouldn't dare spy on everyone is the unspoken assurance. It would be impossible for them to do so. When the impossible is demonstrated to be quite possible, and not actually that difficult, we're back to They Wouldn't Dare."

That is the mentality that will get the next war started. I have no doubts that Iran will use nuclear weapons on Israel just as soon as they have sufficient arms to make the destruction certain. The two nations are in essence avowed enemies, with generations of hatred between them. Couple that with the impression that many in power have that they are brilliant and worse, chosen by God to be the one in power, and you have disaster waiting in the wings.

Our ongoing diplomatic problems with the world continues to degrade our image and influence. But we offer no changes to that situation. From NSA spying to the asinine problems we are facing with India, our position seems to be founded on the simple idea, they wouldn't dare break off relations with us.

But let's look at History. In 1776 an bunch of upstarts and poorly trained rabble that did not deserve the name Army dared to stand up to the most powerful military on earth. The British Navy was the ruler of the waves. The British Army was unstoppable. Everyone knew this, and yet the colonists dared to break away.

The North Vietnamese were outmatched in every technological field. They dared, and they won.

Castro started the Cuban Revolution with three or four people and an ideal. He dared and he won.

What is the motto of the SAS? Who dares wins.

That is why I am so concerned that the continuing degradation of the American Image overseas. I really don't want us to be the next World Enemy defeated by a united world. Before you announce that they wouldn't dare. Remember, that history is replete with those who dared, and who won. There are more examples of those who dared, losing, but the successes are the things that inspire.

Santa Ana never imagined that the Texans would put up a serious fight. The Northern States assumed that the civil war would be over quickly, and men wondered why they had to sign two year papers to enlist, when the war couldn't last that long against a bunch of ignorant farmers.

August 1914 saw the start of the First World War, called the Great War. Will 2014 be the next chapter in the continuing trend of world wars? Would it hurt to be a little more understanding towards other nations, and their sensibilities? It certainly might help our relations with the rest of the world, because as awesome as our Drones are and the ability to listen in on every dirty phone call we can't possibly hope to defeat the world should they dare to oppose us.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

1. Yes. Because I believe world war is inevitable when resources are

Truly scarce. 2014 is on the path. But so was 2013, 2012, 2002, 1995, 1980.....I think world war will occur but I don't believe it is imminent or that 2014 will specifically play a pivotal role.

[Lurks Often]

2. I don't see another conventional world war happening

Virtually no country in the world can project significant military power worldwide anymore.

What you might see is a major regional conflict involving 3 or more countries, an possible example being China vs Japan, S. Korea and the United States.

[AverageJoe90]

3. Simply put, barring some truly unfortunate coincidence and/or a massive conspiracy, no.

The problem with WWI was, is that major tensions had been building all across the European continent for several years before the powder keg finally burst; this was also true just before WWII broke out as well(though in the latter case, Germany being the only real aggressor).

This is not true today, however. Yes, some of those who have a lesser understanding of history(or a rather pessimistic outlook, or perhaps both!) will object, but this truly is a radically different world than the one in 1914; there was no globalization, half of the world's major nations were all kingdoms, Africa was colonized between half-a-dozen different powers, and Russia was still Tsarist, just to name a few. Oh, and nuclear weapons hadn't been invented yet, either.

To be fair, just as little as a quarter of a century ago, you would have been largely correct; there were, in fact, several incidents in which the Third World War almost did get started, including two in 1983 alone, and not to mention the Cuban Missile Crisis. But the danger of even a World War I-style WWIII is pretty much still in the shadows at this moment(and the traditional WWIII is all but impossible now). Now, to be fair, again, there's nothing that says that a Second Cold War couldn't begin or that a major regional war that could really shake the whole world, couldn't happen.

But contrary to the fearmongerers and the uninformed, it's not just across the corner. And to be truthful, it would take a whole string of truly unlikely & unfortunate coincidences, or a global conspiracy that even Alex Jones would have a hard time comprehending, or even both, to suddenly just change that. Honestly, we have far more pressing issues to worry about right now.

[Egalitarian Thug]

4. The next war will start the week after the next resource rich nation decides it doesn't need

the parasites anymore and says "no more". I think it will be in Central/South America.

[treestar]

5. Just because it is 100 years later?

No, there will not necessarily be another world war because that.

[struggle4progress]

6. Manifesto of the International Socialist Congress at Basel (1912)

... If the Balkan crisis, which has already caused such terrible disasters, should spread further, it would become the most frightful danger to civilization and the proletariat. At the same time it would be the greatest outrage in all history because of the crying discrepancy between the immensity of the catastrophe and the insignificance of the interests involved ...

It is the duty of the Social-Democratic parties of Austria, Hungary, Croatia and Slavonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina to continue with all their power their effective action against an attack upon Serbia by the Danubian monarchy ...

However, the most important task within the action of the International devolves upon the working class of Germany, France, and England. At this moment, it is the task of the workers of these countries to demand of their governments that they refuse any support either to Austria-Hungary or Russia, that they abstain from any intervention in the Balkan troubles and maintain absolute neutrality. A war between the three great leading civilized peoples on account of the Serbo-Austrian dispute over a port would be criminal insanity. The workers of Germany and France cannot concede that any obligation whatever to intervene in the Balkan conflict exists because of secret treaties ...

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1912/basel-manifesto.htm