The peace which Europe had enjoyed before the outbreak of the First World War was nearly unprecedented in its duration - more than forty years lie between last large-scale conflict and the catastrophe which befell the continent in 1914. Yet, at the same time that very period was pregnant with an extraordinary bellicosity, in the light of which it looked more like a necessary armistice, a temporary respite rather than a conscious decision to avoid resorting to arms in solving international disputes.
Both Mark Twain and General Bernhardi testify to the widespread social acceptance of the war; the former does it by means of sarcastic ridicule and the latter by that of lofty exhortation.
What were, in your opinion, the reasons for adopting warlike attitudes with such a facility if not incredulity? Europe was far from being inexperienced in the art of self-destruction, yet, that experience did not seem to have reduced the allure generated by visions of grand battles. Combining texts you read with the lecture materials, you need to interrogate the roots of the sentiments which, without making it inevitable, rendered the option of war by and large admissible.
Both Mark Twain and General Bernhardi testify to the widespread social acceptance of the war; the former does it by means of sarcastic ridicule and the latter by that of lofty exhortation.
What were, in your opinion, the reasons for adopting warlike attitudes with such a facility if not incredulity? Europe was far from being inexperienced in the art of self-destruction, yet, that experience did not seem to have reduced the allure generated by visions of grand battles. Combining texts you read with the lecture materials, you need to interrogate the roots of the sentiments which, without making it inevitable, rendered the option of war by and large admissible.
If I understand correctly the question and the text, i'll try to answer according to the Bernhardi and Twain. I got that point of view from Bernhardi, that German people is the very very peaceful nation with the deep understanding the aim to be just, and that they are always was ready to share this opinion to another governments(to be just). He also said about the words of Goethe, that Germans driven by a sense of justice. But I found in lofty words(Bernhardi) about German, the thin resentment of them, that the world or the other States started to forget them, their power and their ability to change the world, to rule the world. And to prove it, they have to sacrifice by the starting the war and again become the powerful country in the eyes of the other countries. He said that the war is the factor of the force and culture of the nation. On the other hand, from Twains job we can feel that people, during the war, pray to win the war hiding behind the patriotic or kind feelings. But what is the another side of this praying? People pray for totally destroying the enemy. And with this to stand to higher place than the enemy or enemies.
ReplyDeleteBefore turning to the main question I should draw attention to the following point so as to facilitate the flow of my later argument.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, the course of history is driven but by a group of few picked individuals. The direction of history is ordained by those who hold the authority at the moment. Public opinion matters little, if any. Futile revolts, trifling strikes at the factory ― are the most what common people are capable of. There is no a single uprising in history which succeeded in bringing about some significance. You say that revolutions were groundbreaking. Yes, several of them were, not a doubt of it. But how revolution is going to proceed and affect the society is determined beforehand by a number of interested individuals. A usual revolutionary agenda consists in, firstly, selecting the target stratum of a society, say, all young people (young people are susceptible to be easily brainwashed and they do not remember much of their state's recent history as well as being unaware of the real values in their lives), and simply letting them to make a revolution, „to kindle the tinderbox“, involving the rest of the society by means of the crowd effect, while in the mean time those few interested individuals observe the process from the cover and, eventually, reap the harvest brought by revolution by capturing the authority in the state. You are trying to push the limits of incredulity by pointing out to me that I am not able to demonstrate this by a concrete historical illustration. Yes, I am not, neither anyone else will be, because those few individuals did not want you know this and could conceal the details by distorting the written history. But I can definitely judge by what I am witnessing right away in the world and this cannot be hidden from me. Look at how much hatred young Ukrainians attach to Russia, the source of which does not in the least come from the feelings brewing on their own within the public space. Instead, again they were imposed and not necessarily from above but, more possibly, by someone the existince of whom you do not even guess. Now that I have persuaded (if persuaded I have) you that when the state concerns come in, there remain no space for the concerns of the commoners who inhibit the state, I can safely say that I reduce the investigation of warlike attitudes to those of who ruled the states.
I think that the outbreak of the WWI was mainly due to the German bellicosity, because had it not been for Germany the conflict between Austria-Hungarian empire and Serbia would have remained local. The facility of resorting to the means of war was caused by German heritage which traced back to the time when Germany was being united through the constant wars with neighbouring countries. German rulers did not hesitate to take up what had been started by their predecessors and, according to Bernhardi, „increase what we have won“, maintaining that „what was won in war can only be kept by war“ and trying „never to abandon these acquisitions“. The „living power“ of Germany was a metaphor representing its military strength. Marking extreme tensions between the Great Powers, Bernhardi was certain that a forthcoming worldwide war was not only an admissible option but an inevitable one. Owing to the „geographical position in the midst of hostile rivals“ and indicating that „German nation is beset on all sides“, Bernhardi justified himself and the rulers of Germany in taking belligerent actions in order to rescue the German nation from the unavoidable downfall. In view of these, German rulers had no scruples proclaiming war and ordaining ordinary people to suffer its horrors, assigning them no larger role than that of a mere pawns.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteТоже вспоминал украинцев, перечитывая Бернг(х?)арди.
DeleteLiving power, всё же, мне кажется, был использован даже не для конкретных очертаний, не для конкретного термина, а лишь для абстрактного отвлеченного понятия, который так и напрашивается на объяснения и которые, между прочим, так и лились на нашем уроке тоже.
По сути, метафоры - очень удобный инструмент пропаганды. И очерчу функциональность метафор: делать текст "родным". Люди прочитывают и прививают им именно то, что им важнее, что они хотят видеть в их великой стране (мире, жизни, огороде), именно они и видят это показателем величия или важности.
Вот почему метафоры хороши, если они еще и очень абстрактные - они заставляют выдумывать то, что нам приятнее и важнее всего!
I think you're right I mean that metaphors are needed to make the text a native, but it seems to me that in the text, the word living power has more value.
DeleteУ меня к вам предложение. Попробуйте абстрагироваться от пропаганды уровня Первого Канала, Киселева или украинских СМИ и представить себе следующую картину.
DeleteЕсть государство N, M и D. В этих государствах образовалась власть при которой появление альтернативного мнения не возможно, или же невозможен сценарий смены власти посредством избирательного права.
В государстве N, из-за невозможности воспользоваться легитимными инструменты, происходит переворот власти. В свое время, схожим образом поменялась власть в государстве M и D.
Одновременно с этим, M вводит войска в государство N и объявляет часть ее территорию своей.
Вопрос. Как жители государства N должны относиться к государства M? И есть ли основания у жителей государства M относиться враждебно к жителям N?
И вопрос для бонуса. Что делать жителям государства D?
M имеют полное основание относится враждебно, ведь теперь N имеют такое же основание пытаться отвязаться от доминирования M над ним.
DeleteD стоит в сторонке и дрожит. Вполне возможно, M захочет им завладеть. Возможно, M не будет трогать, т.к. само побоится. Но это всё "возможности". Хотя, задача не совсем корректна, ведь все важные условия неизвестны - демография, экономическое состояние, уровень образования и т.п.
И вообще, непонятна цель твоей задачи, ведь мы говорим больше именно об энтузиазме жителей по отношению к войне. Большинство хотели войны даже более для расширения, чем для защиты от внешнего врага. И это удивительно - не по христиански как-то)
I think this military actions happened, strange as it may sound, because of German`s success. Germany turned into forehanded, successful country with good economics and military. Germany had not caught at imperialistic process when other European countries divided the world. Unfortunately, there was not any space for Germany, consequently there was not marketplace. Germany became a hostage of its own evolvement, and it could let German`s self-esteem down. In my opinion, Germany had to develop and expand own sphere of influence, i regard that one of the key factors of war were economics and market prosperity.
ReplyDeleteIf Mark Twain shows us result, then Bernhardi’s work creates this result. In other words, both works presents product of propaganda and this product is unquestioning faith in new ideas, that war is source of power and that war is triumph of nation.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, history didn’t teach people, and continue this till now. People simply were wrong about the story line. And this oblivion was not physical (not sclerosis), but purposeful under the influence of propaganda – governments demonstrated only beneficial sides of historical events. To impact people is better with replacement of historical handling that is still used today.
What is about founders of war, i.e. governments?
It’s impossible to know exactly about this. Perhaps, they believed in their own words. But in my opinion, they were needed in power, money, position and women. (Sex, drugs, rock’n’roll)
Yes, I have to accept that a greater role at the beginning of the war was Germany, because Germany was surrounded by strong economically and militarily neighbors, therefore the country needed strength. Germany is too late to start a colonial policy, so almost remained without colonies, making the German capital was deprived of markets. And of course, Germany was unhappy with the entire current situation, whereby the beginning of forming alliances. And of course, Germany was unhappy with the entire current situation, whereby the beginning of forming alliances which became the glowing situation.
ReplyDeleteBut when I read Mark Twain, I got the impression that people needed in the war. I mean that, while there were no major battles and mankind was in some kind of stasis, there was no movement, and to carry forward the people needed a certain engine, so that this engine was the war. The war helped people to get out of the decadence and look at things from another angle. But Mark Twain wrote: “When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory — must follow it, cannot help but follow it.”
People did not seem to understand why they go to war, for which they prayed, and did not understand what to believe. Then people were at a loss of what was going on, and just acted by inertia
I don't quite understand the question. Who adopting warlike attitudes? Are we talking about the war in general or focus on Germany?
ReplyDeleteIf we are focusing on Germany, I agree with the reasoning of General Bernhardi that Germany began to gain the potential to be "at the forefront of European nations" and was a high probability that others "hostile rivals" could destroy Germany. Moreover, this potential was the ambition to have a dominant position in the world. So, in my opinion, for Germany the war was the one of the way ("the one of" because of ways always more than one) to develop further and it was the most German way because a spirit of "most warlike nation of Europe" was in them.