August 16th 2014


  Buy Issue 2930
Qty:

Articles from this issue:

CANBERRA OBSERVED High noon for 'End of Entitlements' Joe Hockey

FOREIGN AFFAIRS Australia should help Iraq's besieged Christians

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Locking up the dogs of war: huge decline in war-related deaths

WORLD WAR I The Great War at 100: Revisiting The Guns of August

EDUCATION 'Safe Schools' scandal: Open letter to the education minister

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Govt minister attacked for comments on cohabitation

EDITORIAL Baby Gammy case highlights weakness in surrogacy laws

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Web of criminality unveiled by royal commission

NATIONAL AFFAIRS The odd couple behind the same-sex marriage push

VICTORIA Labor leader in hot water over 'dirty' campaign

ENERGY Russian oil card a threat to European integration

CINEMA Understanding grace, mercy and suffering

BOOK REVIEW Pretext for Hitler's dictatorship: the Reichstag fire

BOOK REVIEW The feel-good policies that devastate

Books promotion page

survey link

FONT SIZE:

WORLD WAR I
The Great War at 100: Revisiting The Guns of August


by Martin J. Folkertsma

News Weekly, August 16, 2014

On August 3, 1914, British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey gave a speech before Parliament that “proved to be one of those junctures by which people afterward date events,” according to Barbara Tuchman in her magisterial The Guns of August (1962).

The dour Secretary appeared “pale, haggard and worn”, as he dutifully explained “British interests, British honour and British obligations”, all of which conspired to produce a commitment to defend Belgium against the militarism of the continent’s mightiest power: Imperial Germany.

British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey in

1914 (left) and Scottish historian Niall Ferguson 

The issue involved more than the troublesome neutrality of that inconveniently situated little country. A few hours after Grey’s speech, Germany declared war on France, with the full expectation that victory would be achieved “before the leaves have fallen from the trees”, as Kaiser Wilhelm II declared.

The day ended with Grey remarking that “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime” — words that proved prescient. The gloomy German Chief of Staff Helmuth von Moltke conjured a more farsighted scenario when he exclaimed to a colleague that their country was embarking on “the struggle that will decide the course of history for the next hundred years”.

And so it has been, though not in a fashion that the best minds before the first battles of the war could have foretold or even vaguely glimpsed. Indeed, only a handful of observers thought that the conflict would last much longer than three or four months, a war that could be planned and executed. And the future horrors that the war unleashed totally eluded them.

Consider Tuchman’s description of the first German attacks on a Belgian fortress around Liège: “Spending lives like bullets” the Germans continued their assaults, such that “the fallen were heaped on top of each other in an awful barricade of dead and wounded”, stated a Belgian officer.

“But would you believe it? This veritable wall of dead and dying enabled those wonderful Germans to creep closer, and actually to charge up the glacis.”

In fact, the battle for Liège represents the sort of maniacal determination that history reserves to those whose sanity and humanity had been conquered by the madness of ideological commitment, in this case to a military plan whose strictures could hardly be compromised by the mere expenditure of “lives like bullets”.

All of which became worse beyond the most macabre imagination.

The Battle of Verdun, considered the longest battle of attrition in history, claimed one million lives on both sides, after which the front lines had hardly changed at all.

The Battle of the Somme, whose film depiction so traumatised the sensibilities of British viewers, also consumed one million lives, Englishmen and Germans.

The Battle of Passchendaele, which, like the offensive on the Somme was supposed to be a breakthrough advance, generated over a half million casualties on both sides, with only a few miles of worthless territory gained.

In fact, as historian Niall Ferguson points out in The Pity of War (1998), the slaughter that lasted from August 1914 to November 1918 witnessed 6,046 deaths per day in a complex of trenches that (according to Paul Fussell) covered 25,000 miles (40,000 kms) on both sides — enough to circle the earth.

From all this Ferguson concludes, “Quite apart from the killing, maiming and mourning, the war literally and metaphorically blew up the achievements of a century of economic advance.”

And for what? Verdun, the Somme, Passchendaele, Ypres, the Marne, Arras and scores of other battlegrounds ravaged by the most hideous implements of modern warfare — machine guns, flamethrowers, poisonous gas, trench mortars, artillery, aircraft, submarines — all haunt European memory like the destructive exploits of a delinquent youth who had experimented with self-immolation for purposes long forgotten.

Indeed, a Pandora’s Box of 20th-century evils burst from this murderous foray, including the victories of Nazism and Bolshevism and their attendant horrors — a short list of the consequences of Europe’s dabbling with how best to kill itself.

Which leaves us where, today? The lamps are lit again and Europe is at peace; but it is the peace of senescence.

The toxic passions of nationalism have succumbed to the moral neutrality of multiculturalism and a deathly low birth-rate, which will accomplish in the long term what the Great War nearly did in the short term: civilisational suicide.

Once bristling with weapons and purpose, Europe survives as a patina of modernism covering a museum of forgotten furies, all protected by the United States.

The question is whether a positive role, again in terms of a civilising mission based on the best of what Europe has to offer, will ever again emerge from a continent that has so influenced the globe over the past half millennium.

Is greatness still possible? This is one of the important questions the world will face one hundred years after The Guns of August.

Dr Marvin J. Folkertsma is a professor of political science and fellow for American studies with the Center for Vision & Values, a conservative think-tank at Grove City College, Grove City, Pennsylvania. The author of several books, his latest release is a high-energy novel titled The Thirteenth Commandment. This article is reproduced with the Center’s permission. 




























Join email list

Join e-newsletter list


Your cart has 0 items



Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers



Trending articles

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Cardinal rebuts commission's 'Get Pell' campaign

COVER STORY Anti-discrimination law validates Safe Schools

U.S. AFFAIRS First Brexit, now Trump: it's the economy, stupid!

INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENT Wikileaks reveals U.S, funding behind anti-coal campaign

COVER STORY QUT discrimination case exposes Human Rights Commission failings

FOREIGN AFFAIRS How the left whitewashed Fidel Castro

ANALYSIS What is possible to a Trump Whitehouse



News and views from around the world

19-year-old homeschooled pro-lifer wins Ontario election by landslide (Lianne Laurence)

Trump makes right choice for education secretary (National Review)

Transgender conformity (Katherine Kersten)

Sex education programs do not reduce teen pregnancy or STI rates (Philippa Taylor)

Photographer who captured Safe Schools founder harassing bystander shuts down business (Frank Chung)

Is the global middle class here to stay? (Samuel Rines)

Donald Trump could end America's new feudalism (Joel Kotkin)

It just got easier to find the perpetrators of Stalin's purges (David Filipov)

Castro's death eradicate bacillus of old-style Marxism (Gerald Warner)

Labor MP Terri Butler in QUT race case apology (Geoff Chambers)



























© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
December 2, 2016, 2:36 pm