How unfair- sometimes world leaders disparage the voice of peace

I was reading a wikipedia article about WWI and Pope Benedict XV. And it mentioned how numerous times the Pope would appeal for an end to the war, but neither side would listen. Indeed, many people didn't like him because they always thought he was on the opposite side of the war- in reality, all he wanted was an end to that "yseless massacre". In 1917 he issued a seven point peace proposal- everyone except president Woodrow Wilson ignored it- and Wilson said it was too early from peace. The Vatican was also excluded from the peace talks at the treaty of Paris- Benedict actually criticised the harsh terms against Germany saying they would lead to resentment and could provoke another war. Being Unable to stop the war or establish a just peace, Benedict devoted himself to using his personal and Vatican treasury monies to alleviating the suffering of the victims of the war- upon his death the Vatican treasury only held about $19,000. Marvelous man, how could those other world leaders be so callous and so against peace?

Your thoughts? Is this attitude of many world leaders still a problem today?

In a democratic state, leaders follow the majority vote-and the voice of the people tends to be one of xenophobia and hate-mongering.

In an autocracy, any leader, no matter how noble, becomes corrupted by that kind of power.

The pope is under no such obligation, but, also does not understand realpolitik

It's not Europe's fault that Germany went psycho.SolidSnake35

first world war.

It's not Europe's fault that Germany went psycho.SolidSnake35

Again, vioce of the masses=xenophobia.

Hitler played on the feeling that Germany was wronged in the war, and that Germany should ne for Germans. The economic depression didnt exactly hurt either.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]It's not Europe's fault that Germany went psycho.Hewkii

first world war.

Yep. Very different from the second. Germany didn't 'go psycho.' All of Europe 'went psycho' over an assassination of someone who was, in reality, not an especially important person. But then, it's not uncommon for politicians to look for any excuse to go to war when that's what they want to do.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]It's not Europe's fault that Germany went psycho.Hewkii

first world war.

Germany wanted and planned for WW1 as far as I know.SolidSnake35

as did the rest of Europe.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Germany wanted and planned for WW1 as far as I know.Hewkii

as did the rest of Europe.

the voice of the people tends to be one of xenophobia and hate-mongering.atejas

I'm not so sure that that's true, actually. I think Hermann Goering put it best, oddly enough:

"Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. .... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

[QUOTE="Hewkii"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]It's not Europe's fault that Germany went psycho.SolidSnake35

first world war.

Austria-Hungary certainly wanted war with Serbia. The rest of Europe got drawn in by their alliances. But there was so much distrust and bitterness in Europe at the time that it would be safe to say they ALL wanted war. There was a lot of celebrating when war broke out, and all the nationalistic fools thought they were going to 'stick it to nation X.' That subsided in a hurry.

In what way? Germany was the country who tried to bury France before anyone knew what was going on. I get the impression that that's something of an aggressive move.SolidSnake35

I'd say building up one's armies to the extent it got to is wanting and planning for war.

[QUOTE="Hewkii"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Germany wanted and planned for WW1 as far as I know.SolidSnake35

as did the rest of Europe.

They had a plan of attack and were prepared for war. It's common sense to have a plan of attack when war with your neighbor is likely to occur. France and Germany weren't exactly on the best of terms in the early 20th century thanks to the happenings of the late 19th century.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]In what way? Germany was the country who tried to bury France before anyone knew what was going on. I get the impression that that's something of an aggressive move.Hewkii

I'd say building up one's armies to the extent it got to is wanting and planning for war.

They had a plan of attack and were prepared for war. It's common sense to have a plan of attack when war with your neighbor is likely to occur. France and Germany weren't exactly on the best of terms in the early 20th century thanks to the happenings of the late 19th century.pianist

[QUOTE="Hewkii"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]In what way? Germany was the country who tried to bury France before anyone knew what was going on. I get the impression that that's something of an aggressive move.SolidSnake35

I'd say building up one's armies to the extent it got to is wanting and planning for war.

Bosnia? Do you mean Serbia? In reality, you could say the same thing about Russia encouraging Serbia's belligerence in harbouring the Black Hand.

Germany and its allies were not solely to blame for World War I. Thinking they were is a simplistic way of analyzing the complex political situation of that time.

[QUOTE="Hewkii"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]In what way? Germany was the country who tried to bury France before anyone knew what was going on. I get the impression that that's something of an aggressive move.SolidSnake35

I'd say building up one's armies to the extent it got to is wanting and planning for war.

Serbia. Pick on one little nation, and they assassinate an archduke and send Europe into a frenzy of nationalism.

[QUOTE="atejas"]the voice of the people tends to be one of xenophobia and hate-mongering.GabuEx

I'm not so sure that that's true, actually. I think Hermann Goering put it best, oddly enough:

"Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. .... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

yeah, you're probably right. By nature, people arent like that, but propoganda colours their viewpoints.

[QUOTE="Hewkii"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]In what way? Germany was the country who tried to bury France before anyone knew what was going on. I get the impression that that's something of an aggressive move.SolidSnake35

I'd say building up one's armies to the extent it got to is wanting and planning for war.

I find that a lot of people like to blame the war on germany, and quite frankly; this is either a resault of their intiation of the attacking or because of all the "germany is evil" (or at least the leaders) propoganda forced into your heads about WWII

At any rate, simply because germany attacked first did not mean that someone else wouldn't. There was an arms race and when it came down to war everyone in Europe was ready to use their newly built weapons. Countries (whether we, or even they, know it) build weapons to use them. When the opportunity arrives.... expect them to grab the bait.

[QUOTE="pianist"]They had a plan of attack and were prepared for war. It's common sense to have a plan of attack when war with your neighbor is likely to occur. France and Germany weren't exactly on the best of terms in the early 20th century thanks to the happenings of the late 19th century.SolidSnake35

Ever heard the phrase "the best defense is a good offense?" Germany wanted to keep France out of Germany. So their plan was based on the notion of getting into France as quickly as possible, and hopefully defeating them before the combined French and English armies could turn against them. Bear in mind that Germany had to worry about Russia, too.

If you, as a strategist, feel that Germany had any other option for victory but to attack first and attempt to avoid a two-front war, you'd have about as much expertise and skill as Stalin's post-Purges military leadership. And with respect to alliances, you could ask the same question about the Triple Entente. What would have happened if Russia hadn't defended Serbia? What would have happened if the Britain and France had told Russia that they were on their own?

If you want to blame a nation for World War I, blame Serbia and Austria-Hungary. It was their petty squabbling that led to the whole mess. Granted, war may well have broken out for a different reason if that weren't the case, but as it stands, that's what actually happened. What you're really saying is that Germany is to blame for World War I because they didn't back out of their alliance. Again, by that rationale, there are a lot of countries who could have backed out of their alliances but failed to do so.

If you, as a strategist, feel that Germany had any other option for victory but to attack first and attempt to avoid a two-front war, you'd have about as much expertise and skill as Stalin's post-Purges military leadership.pianist

[QUOTE="pianist"]If you, as a strategist, feel that Germany had any other option for victory but to attack first and attempt to avoid a two-front war, you'd have about as much expertise and skill as Stalin's post-Purges military leadership.SolidSnake35

This description from Wiki tells the story:

"The Austro-Hungarian government used the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand as a pretext to deal with the Serbian question, supported by Germany. On 23 July1914, an ultimatum was sent to Serbia with ten demands, some so extreme that the Serbian reply included reservations and rejected the sixth demand. The Serbians, relying on support from Russia, removed acceptance of the sixth key demand (the draft reply had accepted it), and also ordered mobilization. In response to this, Austria-Hungary issued a declaration of war on 28 July. Initially, Russia ordered partial mobilization, directed at the Austrian frontier. On 31 July, after the Russian General Staff informed the Czar that partial mobilization was logistically impossible, a full mobilization was ordered. The Schlieffen Plan, which relied on a quick strike against France, could not afford to allow the Russians to mobilize without launching an attack. Thus, the Germans declared war against Russia on 1 August and on France two days later. Germany then violated Belgium's neutrality by the German advance through it to Paris, and this brought the British Empire into the war. With this, five of the six European powers were now involved in the largest continental European conflict since the Napoleonic Wars.[25] "

So what happened was this - Austria-Hungary made demands of Serbia that Serbia was unwilling to meet. So Serbia mobilized. Austria-Hungary declared war in response. So Russia then mobilized against Austria-Hungary. And because Germany had made a 'carte blanche' promise to Austria-Hungary to protect it, they had to respond. So the Schileffen plan HAD to be initiated right then and there, or Germany would be stuck with a two-front war, which they knew they'd almost certainly lose.

There can be little doubt that had Germany not declared war on France that France would have declared war on Germany in short order thanks to their alliance with Russia. You have to remember that France was still incredibly bitter over the Franco-Prussian war. They would have seized any opportunity to take back the land they lost in the treaty that ended that war.

I for one, believe that Austria-Hungary was to blame the most, Black Hand wasn't operating in the name of Serbia in any way, and thus Serbia wasn't responsible for their actions.

I also disagree with the notion that all countries wanted war -- I think Russia joined in because they didn't want to see Sebia get crushed, they would have been slightly amoral to see Serbia get swallowed by the Austrian-Hungrarian empire, and Britain itself would have been amoral to let Germany stamp their way across Europe.

I for one, believe that Austria-Hungary was to blame the most, Black Hand wasn't operating in the name of Serbia in any way, and thus Serbia wasn't responsible for their actions.

I also disagree with the notion that all countries wanted war -- I think Russia joined in because they didn't want to see Sebia get crushed, they would have been slightly amoral to see Serbia get swallowed by the Austrian-Hungrarian empire, and Britain itself would have been amoral to let Germany stamp their way across Europe.

MetalGear_Ninty

You can rest assured that morality was the least of any of these nations' concerns. Declarations of war were made for political reasons, nothing more. But I tend to agree with you that Austria-Hungary was most to blame for the outbreak of the war. And of all the nations involved, I would say that they were the most keen on war, followed closely by France, which wished to avenge the Franco-Prussian war.