Living in a world shaped by World War I and its aftermath

verdun cemetery

As the centennial marking the beginning of the Great War nears, we would do well to remember the sea change brought about by the 1914-18 conflict.

Beyond the more than 10 million killed, the onslaught of the Spanish influenza in 1918 which claimed an additional 50 million lives worldwide and the collapse of four major empires, World War I reshaped the world, and continues to impact us today.

The seeds for a second, much great world clash a generation later were planted in the peace treaties following the Great War; boundaries were drawn that still exist today, with countries created along arbitrary lines that served as catalysts for future tension and strife; and government control over areas such as trade and travel were forever altered and often restricted.

As Margaret MacMillan of Oxford College, the author of The War that Ended Peace: The Road to 1914, writes in the Wall Street Journal, the conflict not only changed the course of history but sent the world down a dispiriting path that likely didn’t have to happen.

Before 1914, Russia was a backward autocracy but was changing fast. Its growth rate was as high as any of the Asian tigers in the 1960s and 1970s; it was Europe’s major exporter of food grains and, as it industrialized, was importing machinery on a massive scale. Russia also was developing the institutions of civil society, including the rule of law and representative government. Without the war, it might have evolved into a modern democratic state; instead, it got the sudden collapse of the old order and a coup d’état by the Bolsheviks. Soviet communism exacted a dreadful toll on the Russian people and indeed the world—and its remnants are still painfully visible in the corrupt, authoritarian regime of Vladimir Putin.

The war also destroyed other options for Europe’s political development. The old multinational empires had their faults, to be sure, but they enabled the diverse peoples within their boundaries to live in relative harmony. Both Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans were trying to work out ways of encompassing the demands of different groups for greater autonomy. Might they have succeeded if the war had not exhausted them to the point of collapse? We will never know, but since then, the world has suffered the violence and horrors of ethnic nationalism.

The armistice of 1918 ended one gigantic conflict, but it left the door open for a whole host of smaller ones – the “wars of the pygmies,” as Winston Churchill once described them. Competing national groups tried to establish their own independence and to push their borders out at the expense of their neighbors. Poles fought Russians, Lithuanians and Czechs, while Romania invaded Hungary. And within their borders, Europeans fought each other. Thirty-seven thousand Finns (out of some 3 million) died in a civil war in the first months of 1918, while in Russia, as many as a million soldiers and many more civilians may have died by the time the Bolsheviks finally defeated their many opponents.

The war had brutalized European society, which had grown accustomed during the largely peaceful 19th century to think that peace was the normal state of affairs. After 1918, Europeans were increasingly willing to resort to other sorts of force, from political assassinations to street violence, and to seek radical solutions to their problems. The seeds of the political movements on the extremes of both the right and the left – of fascism and communism – were sown in the years before 1914, but it took World War I to fertilize them.

The war aided the rise of extremism by weakening Europe’s confidence in the existing order. Many Europeans no longer trusted the establishments that had got them into the catastrophe. The German and Austrian monarchies were also overthrown, to be succeeded by shaky republics. The new orders might have succeeded in gaining legitimacy in time, but that was the one thing that Europe and the world didn’t have. The Great Depression at the end of the 1920s swept the new regimes away and undermined even the strongest democracies.

The death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, on June 28, 1914, was, sadly, just one of a number of high-profile assassinations that had taken place in the previous few decades, including those of US President William McKinley, Czar Alexander II of Russia and King Umberto I of Italy.

But by the time Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip killed Ferdinand and his wife Sophie on a street in Sarajevo, the world was, quite simply, bound on a course for destruction.

One hundred years later we would do well to study the Great War and the world it made.

(Top: Cemetery at Verdun, France, scene of some of the worst fighting of World War I.)

4 thoughts on “Living in a world shaped by World War I and its aftermath

    • I was thinking just the other day about genocide and ethnic cleansing, and actually wondered why the 20th century seemed to have so many more instances of genocide, or perhaps it’s more accurate to ask, why was the genocide on such a larger scale. I suppose mechanization must have been one of the key factors.

      However, that didn’t fully satisfy me. While I have no doubt that, for example, the US government sought to wipe out Indians to make way for settlers in the 19th century, the way they did so was different than the genocide committed against the Jews, in Cambodia, in Rwanda, etc., etc., in the 20th century. No one sent Indians to camps to be exterminated, no matter how awful reservations were.

      Even the horrible treatment that the Belgians meted out to the inhabitants of the Congo around the turn of the 19th century wasn’t the result of lining them up and killing them, but was an effort to extract more labor from them.

      So I guess my question is how and when did we take the step from racism and killing through abuse and neglect to outright wholesale slaughter? I suspect it was the Ottoman Empire’s attempt to eradicate the Armenians, but there were likely earlier genocides. I just can’t recall any off the top of my head.

  1. ‘largely peaceful 19th century’?
    French intervention in Spain, the Carlist civil wars, Napoleon III’s campaigns in Italy against Austria, the Austro-Prussian War, the Franco -Prussian War, the Schleswig-Holstein affair, not to speak of the eternal colonial campaigns in Africa and Asia….and the little matter of the American Civil War…

    Methinks the lady is trying too hard to push her theory of brutalisation.

    • Well, in fairness, the period from 1815 to 1914 is often referred to as a period of peace, I suppose because there was no global conflicts akin to the Seven Years’ War or World War I. But you’re right – it’s a rather narrow view, particularly if you ended up getting shipped to the Crimea in the 1850s, or Paris around 1870 or were involved in the Taiping Revolution of the American Civil War.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s