[boltondd]

Originally posted by Unimatrix11
But what was the goal of WWI ? For any nation in the conflict it differs. For many, one has to restrict oneself to formulating a very vague goal - like preserving national honor (Russia or Germany). Of course there were multiple and various smaller goals for each nation, but none of which was so vital for the future of any country, that, had the people anticipated how long and intense the fighting would be, would have entered the conflict for it (except the US). But fact is, that most people thought the war would be over within 6-8 weeks at the most - a short cleansing thunderstorm... had they known the price they really had to pay to (not - for the vanquished) achieve the goals, probably none of the (official) decision makers would have rendered the price worth the cost. But once you start, how do you stop...? there is just one thinkable way: by victory you stop - no sooner, no later. IMO it was mostly a political failure to end the war not earlier. For example, in 1905 Russia was by no means decisively beaten insofar that it's total military and economical capabilities were destroyed by Japan. And otoh Japan couldn't even hope for achieving that and hadn't such a goal. But it had several land victories, and the final naval victory at Tsushima, so it "won", but it was by no means decisive in the sense described above. In the end both sides realized that there wasn't much to gain in continuing the war.

As for goals in WWI, yes they varied, but they were political or - "Clausewitzian" if you will - goals like getting this part of land, access to resources, dominating Europe, whatever. This however isn't automatically the same as exterminating the people or committing large scale atrocities. Conquest was pretty much common throughout history, but for example in 1870/71 Prussia didn't try to wipe out France or the French people.

The underlying ideology before WWI was pretty much the same in all european states. I think what you mean is the hatred among the states. But that was to the biggest part result of the war itself, or to be more specific, the result of the propaganda conducted during the war against the enemy in the various nations. Like the german soldier on posters killing innocent babies with his bayonette. This example also shows how much the argument of reconcilliation after the war was given a thought during the war - none, pretty much (as can be seen in the following peace treaties as well). Ok, but what are we debating now here - the escalation of war into a bigger/longer/more intense war? I'm not arguing against this - but even WWI as an example for such a bigger/longer/more intense war is otoh not per se an example for large scale atrocities against non-combattants and POWs (where we started) if we mean by that something outside the battlefield like massive use of POWs or foreign civilians as slave labour, mass executions, etc. These are IMO different levels.

Even in such an intense war like WWI, with certainly more casualties than before it was not the case that POWs were generally mistreated or massacred in large numbers by all sides, so there was still some basic regard for "rules of warfare".

There were some aspects where it was different (unrestricted sub warfare, rudimentary strat bombing, some warcrimes in certain areas - though the really serious Armenian genocide cannot simply just be counted under "WWI" since the conflict was older and more complex), but overall they weren't comparable to WWII, and the reason is IMO to quite some extent the absence of fundamental ideological differences.

As for hatred between states - no, this not exactly my argument. That they had in WWI propaganda painting the enemy as bad is clear, but it was IMO more a result of nationalism and a tool to mobilize the own side than something resulting from a conflict between sides that deny eachother the basic right to exist because of fundamental ideological differences. As you wrote, ideologies in WWI were rather similar.

In WWII however they were not. Some sides were fundamentally opposed to eachother, and that was reflected in the defined goals (well, I think we can't exclude WWII completely since I need it for comparison). Hitler didn't want to defeat the USSR for some land or resources only (though 'Lebensraum' was certainly one goal) - he wanted to fight against Communism. It's a so-called systems conflict, where the sides buy into completely opposing world views and fight not only for something like resources or so, but to "finnish off" the other side. It can manifest itself via hate surely, but it's core reason isn't just hate between countries, but the fundamental differences between the sides. Here any "rules of warfare" are willfully ignored. But because I think of WWII as special in this regard I think "rules of warfare" are something which can be maintained to some extent in wars.

But a lot of the escalation depends, as i said before, on the relative strength and determinations of the opponents. If two countries fight over, say, a goldmine, and one country is twice as strong as the other, there simply is no need for the strong country to make use of atrocities and the point of reconcilliation you made, comes into effect. The weak country may (or may not) refrain from atrocities, since a simple goldmine wouldnt be worth the international condemnation, the loss of potential allies and the wrath of the stronger opponent. It might be better to give in to the will of the stronger (by Clausewitz definition the ultimate goal of any war), before that.

So in summary, the amount and likelyhood of atrocities in a war do not solely depend on the goals and design of the war itself, but also on the relative ratios of strength and determination of the opponents. When both are roughly equal, it forces both opponents to climb up the ladder of escalation, where on the higher steps of it, means do not have to relate to goals at all anymore. Here is where I disagree. Equal strengths can also mean that I'm aware that the enemy is capable of doing to me what I am capable of doing to him. One core element in "laws" of war expressed in the Geneva Conventions etc. is indeed reciprocity- if I don't want my POWs to get killed by my opponent I agree to those rules and don't kill his POWs in return. And even in WWII these rules were in general - again with some exceptions - respected towards the western Allies (and they did so towards the axis POWs). Similarly the use of chem. weapons in WWII was AFAIK precisely not done because of fears the other side could do the same.....and the two nuclear strikes were done in complete asymmetry, with only one side owning nukes, without any fear of a possible retaliation.

edit: just realized your last post....well, for today I'm out