Dear Sebastian

This is a very, very interesting question, and very close to my own research (and opinions) about the subject of which cultural, social, economic, military and political circumstances lead Europe to WWII. I wrote a book (volume I) about this issue in the context of Czechoslovakia, my country of birth.

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/tomvene

Allow me to mention a snippet from chapter 9 that describes how the political blindness and the ignorance about other cultures lead the WWI peace-makers to conceive a peace process which in fact lead to the new confrontation in 1938-39:

After four years of war madness and political and military irrationality, when WWI ended the entire world was in a state of uncertainty. Nobody – no leading diplomat, politician or ruler – could envision where the world would be heading after such a devastating war. Willing to put some order to that chaos, the Allies organized in Paris a huge event that pompously received the name of Peace Conference (PPC, Conférence de paix de Paris in French).

They hoped – their beliefs sustained mostly on wishful thinking – that the major powers would see the absurdities and futility of war, taking steps to prevent it from occurring again in the future. Although the thinking of the time was hard Realism, dictating that “humans are naturally seen as power seeking individuals, whose goal is to become more powerful than their neighbor,” the Conference’s sponsors thought the recent tragedy would – and could – make world leaders work together, proving that humanity could overcome itself.

But historian Margaret MacMillan has exposed the basic “dud-factor” of this initiative. She rightly asserts,

“If there is one word that could describe the Paris Peace Conference, which started in January of1919, it would be idealism. The world looked to its greatest diplomats to usher in a new era of peace and cooperation, and to prove the strength of the human spirit after four years of bloody war...”

Not surprisingly, and as we will see, the nations that came to the Conference had quite divergent ideas in mind and were far from willing to climb aboard President Wilson’s utopias.

Coming back to your question, mainly your inquiries, one may find strong similarities between the Allies naïve views back in the 1920-30s and the events that are leading today's Europe to an ethnic disaster and the spreading of world-wide terrorism.

For years now, Europe has been playing a double-faced policy in regard the Middle East crisis that emerged when the US "liberated" Iraq, believing that the Arab Spring that followed would lead all Muslim countries to embrace full-fledged democracy.

Today we know that this was a fateful misjudgment of Arabic cultural values and social views/habits.

In fact what America and her European allies accomplished in 2003 by toppling S. Hussein was to strongly shake the hornet's nest of Muslim nationalism and religious believes.

We all are familiar with the consequences: not only Al Qaeda's emerging but also, and more recently, ISIS' too.

Meanwhile, Europe and the US were approaching the 2008-09 economic disaster which the capitalists' greed fabricated.

I could go on with this story (I hope your question will allow extending it) but suffice is to say, that the European's societies answer to all these very disturbing factors and fears lead them then, and is leading them now to the search of new strong ultra-nationalistic governments (from right and left) who will implode the European Union and "save" their compatriots from the dangers of Islam and a new WW.

Needless to say that the very strong rise of xenophobia, anti-Semitism and anti-Muslimism in the old continent are the signs that Europeans forgot the lessons of their past and are paving the way, again, to a world-wide cataclysm.

Be well and, if interested, I can send you a copy of the chapter mentioned.

Tom

Dear Sebastian,

Thank you for your upvote.

Do not be disappointed if this important discussion will not generate great interest. I experienced the same with some of my questions related to both world wars. Somehow, elapsed time of very relevant human events diminishes the interest for further analysis of eventual lessons we could extract from the past.

So allow me to go further in my previous comments.

It was Alexander Dumas (father) who coined the expression "cherchez la femme" to denote that in most crimes, no matter what the mystery is, a woman (read sex) is often the root cause. 

I paraphrase this outstanding writer by stating that "cherchez la cupidité" (seek human greed) to explain the causes of most wars.

Let me offer two pertinent examples:

The real cause for WWI was not the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. In the words of Boris Johnson (a British politician, and journalist) "It is a sad but undeniable fact that the First World War – in all its murderous horror – was overwhelmingly the result of German expansionism and aggression".

Surprised? Well don't be, because it is fair to say that the real cause of WWII was the expansionist program conceived by Hitler, called the "seek for Lebensraum."

Why am I presenting this thesis? Because the real cause of an eventual world-wide deflagration will most likely be the financial markets and the armaments industries hunger for more and more profits at the expense of millions (maybe billions) of human deaths.

In the turbulent times we live, what the Muslim terrorist may not realize - given their religious believes - is that they could easily become the triggers (and excuse) for WWIII.

As you see, history may not repeat itself - an issue you well raise in your questioning - but humans always commit the same mistakes. Nowadays, technology advances at exponential rates, but historically and sadly humanism and reason remained almost at a flat plateau.

And it is with human emotions, not reasoning, that warmongers play their games. Remember, it was Hitler who detected that the destroyed (in WWI) German industry was ready to sponsor his mad plan to conquer Europe.

Be well

Tom

Thank you for your answers, Tom. I think the emotional aspect is - among others - an interesting one. From a structural-realist point of view, idealism (in the theoretical IR perspective sense) is a main driver in human actions and counter-actions etc., that is: a human dialectics. Still realism and other rationalisms can't claim to be outside the "game" but being also within the structures (in a analytically holistic perspective).

I'm interested to read the chapter you quoted from. It would be nice if you sent it to me.

Greetings

Sebastian