By Neil John
This is a question that has been discussed in many forums, institutes and governments. War prevention is a huge study by itself. But yet after every battle has been desiccated and lessons drawn out, we still can't prevent the next war. Therefore the question is why can't humans just live in peace, what actually is the motivation to see blood and gore? I immediately come up with the major Es'. Ego, Economy, Energy, this coupled with a thirst for power.
Annexation of territory, miscommunication of intent, political settlements, internal strife etc. are only tools that give a failed logic to war. War more often than not has multiple players involved. What actually therefore is to gain, is perceptual. Do nations become allies for national interests? Friendships? Geo-strategic gains? Profits? What actually puts the logic into a framework is that we are ready to sacrifice our own lives and economy to fight or assist in someone else's war.
World War I
Archival image for representational purposes
The immediate war of misperceptions, faulty evaluations, big ego and utter chaos is World War 1. This was a global war originating in Europe that lasted from 28 July 1914 to 11 November 1918. Also known as the Great War or “the war to end all wars”, (surprising?). It involved more than 70 million military personnel, including 60 million Europeans. The estimates were 8.5 million combatant deaths and 13 million civilian deaths as a direct result of the war. The illness, genocides, end of big nations, evolution of new powers cast this war as the deadliest ever fought.
It all started by the assassination of Austro-Hungarian heir Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. The war was between Serbia and the Austrian-Hungary coalition. But soon a network of interlocking alliances enlarged the crisis from a bilateral issue in the Balkans to one involving most of Europe. By July 1914, the great powers of Europe were divided into two coalitions: the Triple Entente, consisting of France, Russia, and Britain; and the pre-established Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy.
At the end, World War I would see the continent of Europe split into two major opposing alliances; the Allied Powers, primarily composed of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the United States, France, the Russian Empire, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Greece, Serbia and Montenegro; and the Central Powers, primarily composed of the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria.
What therefore was the underlying reason for these alliances? Though their significance is often misunderstood or exaggerated, alliances are one of the best-known causes of World War I. While alliances did not force nations to war in 1914, they nevertheless drew them into confrontation and conflict with their neighbours. The European alliances in many respects were a byproduct of European geopolitics. Europe had long been a melting pot of ethnic and territorial rivalries, political intrigues and paranoia. Alliances provided European states with a measure of protection.
They served as a means of guarding or advancing national interests while acting as a deterrent to war. They were particularly important for Europe's smaller or less powerful states. The alliances were a political, military or economic agreement, negotiated and signed by two or more nations. Military alliances usually contained promises that in the event of war or aggression, signatory nations will support their allies. They ranged from financial or logistic backing, like the supply of materials or weapons, to military mobilisation and a declaration of war against the aggressor. Alliances also contained economic elements, such as trade agreements, investment or loans.
Certain famous alliances that were the norm before World War 1 paved the way for future collaborations on perceived mutual interests. Many of these alliances were negotiated in secret or contained secret clauses, adding to the suspicion and tension that existed in pre-war Europe. The alliance system forced countries to help other allies so if one declared war, the others had to do the same. Without the alliance system, WW1 would have been a lot smaller and probably not a world war since fewer countries would become involved.
What did it provide these alliances?
# Sense of security.
# War as a legitimate political tool.
# Great power relations could offer an opportunity to contain conflicts.
# The hunger for power, to stay ahead in the arms race and be intimidating.
# A form of self-defense,
Economics and military dictating terms and conditions.
What did this war achieve? More power to the powerful? Inherent security? Made permanent friends? Dissipated the resources and capability of large military powers? Diminished the war waging capability and economic strength of trouble making countries? Or just gave rise to a new world order, it formed a new Europe. Have these alliances been configured again?
Do they stand for a just cause or a just war? Why would a sheer single point agenda by one country become a world war? The alliances lost man and material, was it worth the cost of war? Are alliances biased towards a race, skin colour, language and in the garb of controlling a growing power? Will alliances prevent war or be the cause of war?
To prevent future world wars, the League of Nations was created during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. The organisation's primary goals were to prevent armed conflict through collective security, military and naval disarmament, and settling international disputes through peaceful negotiations and arbitration.
World War II
Archival image for representational purposes
Let us now relate to World War 2. The war lasted from 1939 to 1945. It involved the majority of the world's countries, forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis powers. Involving more than 100 million personnel from more than 30 countries, the major participants threw their entire economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities behind the war effort, blurring the distinction between civilian and military resources. This war saw the only two uses of nuclear weapons in war to this day.
World War II resulted in 70 to 85 million fatalities, a majority being civilians. Tens of millions of people died due to genocides (including the Holocaust), starvation, massacres, and disease. In the wake of the Axis defeat, Germany and Japan were occupied. Many nations were touched by the conflict, but the main combatants can be grouped into two opposing factions, Germany, Japan, and Italy where the Axis powers. France, Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union were the Allied powers.
The Allies kept forming up right till the end of the war. The Allies were led by the so-called “Big Three”—the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and the United States—which were the principal contributors of manpower, resources, and strategy, each playing a key role in achieving victory.
The USA remained formally neutral until the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, after which it declared war and officially joined the European Allies. China was already at war with Japan since 1937 but formally joined the Allies in December 1941. There suddenly was a new power equation or what we can call a conglomerate.
The Declaration officially recognized the Big Three and China as the “Four Powers”, in acknowledgement of their central role in prosecuting the war; they were also referred to as the “trusteeship of the powerful” and later as the “Four Policemen” of the United Nations. One enduring legacy of the alliance is the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, which is made up exclusively of the principal Allied powers that won the war.
After the lessons of WWI & WWII could we now be assured that these global wars will not take place. But then wasn't the cold war period filled with situations that could lead not only to conventional conflict but to nuclear wars.
What did the allies achieve in world war II – for the first time we saw two absolute allied forces militarily fight each other, with one decimating the other. New equations and a country was split into East and West Germany, with the major countries, US and Russia distributing the spoils of war. A nuclear attack on a civilian population was justified. The strong powers dictated the terms of war.
The minor powers hardly had any say, it was as if they either joined the war or were considered powerless. Even enemies came together to fight a bigger enemy. Ideally it should have ended the war early, but the war was fought for 07 years.
So the question arises again, will alliances prevent war? Instigate war? Or ensure war as per own perceived selfish national interests? –To be continued.. (Courtesy: Mission Victory India)
(The author is a military analyst and commentator on national security issues. Views expressed are the author's own and do not reflect the editorial policy of Mission Victory India)
