Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Revival of militarism.... why?
My question is why on earth after this huge devastating war did miliartism develop again? The was one of the biggest causes of WWI and that was known at the time. Feeble attempts like the League of Nations were ineffective because it had no real power. To me the idea of a League of Nations can never really work very well because it's essentially asking nations to give up power over themselves to other nations. The League of Nations was also largely ineffective in solving political disputes because of the absence of many nations that were crucial to rebuilding the world after WWI. The League of Nations was to me the only attempt at controlling miliarism at this time, at it was mostly effective at helping social welfare, not political disputes. The countries that were involved should've learned the consequences of miliartism after the first World War but they didn't, why? Could it be because they were too selfish and defensive after the war that they couldn't let go of their defenses? Germany, as a loser of the war, was restricted in it's miliary buildup but upon seeing the United States ignore treaties decided to do the same. Why did treaties suddenly not mean anything? Was the world in such turmoil that old customs didn't seem relevant anymore?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There's one big reason that Germany didn't follow through with its treaties, and he comes with a mustache. The United States may not have been flawless with what it did, but I think that that one insane man, backed by a desperate, war-torn, riches-to-rags country, was cause enough for the end of Germany's abandonment of treaties.
ReplyDeleteAs for the comments about the League of Nations pathetic attempts to keep WWII from occurring, I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, I don't agree with you when you said that the idea of a League of Nations can never really work very well. I mean, were not for the United Nations, which was in essence an empowered League of Nations, there would have been no real diplomatic connection between the United States and Soviet Russia, and that could have led to nuclear war.
Well I feel like that without some sort of civil unifying force (League of Nations), it would have been impossible to halt an arms buildup. I mean, think about it. You don't stop preparing yourself to help the greater good, you are concerned with your own good. When everyone around you is building up their military and technology, can you afford to stop?
ReplyDeleteI think you make a lot of great points.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say, why did treaties suddenly not mean anything to people- in my mind I'm thinking what did Germany as a country have to lose at this point?- the treaty probably meant nothing to them because their world was in that much turmoil.
Like Evan said, a guy with a mustache came along with promises for a better life, so naturally the German population is going to go along with it because they're all starving to death.
In my view, the "winners" of WWI blamed Germany for causing the war rather than more abstract causes like militarism, etc. As a result, they didn't concern themselves with solving the issue of militarism, rather with keeping Germany from establishing a policy of militarism. Of course, you know the rest of the story...
ReplyDelete