War and Culture CaseEssay Preview: War and Culture CaseReport this essayAbstractThe paper scrutinizes the Great War and major aspects of the American Civil War and attempts to understand the various actions that were undertaken through various perspectives. These perspectives, rightly referred to as disciplines, provide insight into the effects of the war and the understanding of the many events that led to the war and took place during the war. However, the main purpose of the paper is to look at the wars and through a holistic scrutiny of its effects through the eyes of politics, psychology, sociology, literature, and profession, understand if the war could have been different. Further, it will expose the areas and aspects where disciplines overlap through the war, and ultimately show these disciplines as interconnected aspects of the lives of the people in the world.
The occurrence of various events in history has been proven to be of utmost importance in the current lives and the growth of the nation. However, at the time of their occurrences, these events did seem to hold much historical significance in comparison to future events. The significance of these events is therefore seen in the years after the event has already past and the remaining communities take it upon themselves to make the connections between the event and the other disciplines and areas of life. One such even is the American civil war, the Great War among other pivotal wars and events in the world. Prior to the Great War, it was almost unknown or unrealizable that the entire world, or at least most of it, could go to war. However, this event changed the way the entire world looked at war, international alliances and even investment in the military (Stevenson, 2004). The Great War, or the First World War, has already been scrutinized from various angles and by different scholars and politicians. . The war saw the loss of more than 9 million military personnel and was instrumental in awakening the revolutionary nature of the world. The First World War enjoyed the participation of some of the biggest nations in the world. On one hand, there were the Allies, which included England, France and Russia (also called the Triple Entente) went against the Triple Alliance, which had countries like Germany, Austria, and Hungary. After some time, the United States of America, Japan and Italy joined the Allies and the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria joined the German side. According to some scholars, the trigger or the cause for the War was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. Austria blamed Serbia for this, and when they attacked, Russia came to Serbias assistance leaving their backyard vulnerable for the Germans to invade through Belgium. One thing led to several events, attempts at diplomatic negotiations and finally it became a full-blown war. The winning or the result of the war was hugely judged by the number of casualties and the financial losses that the participating countries suffered (Fergusson, 1999). The way the entire war was carried out largely has its effects on the military history, which carries the highest number of casualties alongside the civilian casualties, which is reflected in the sociological aspects. Secondly, the war has major contributions to the world of literatures since there are not only a myriad of books talking and scrutinizing the occurrences during the war, but there are also a host of books and literature that have come up on military strategy based on the war.
Mombauer (2013) introduces a philosophical aspect to the causes of the First World War. This is because while not taking sides with any specific country as having been a cause for the outbreak of the war, she details the events in a bid to prove that the conclusion on the matter can vary widely. Mombaeur mentions that there are two approaches to use in order to find out why the war broke out in 1914. It is essential to note that she does not even seek to find out who was responsible, but rather the reasons for the breaking out of the war. This also implies that she is not satisfied by the mainstream reason, which assumes and also concludes that the major reason for the outbreak of the War was the assassination the Austrian leader. Her philosophical approach may be seen to cause more of a dilemma than response because it goes ahead to doubt the legibility of the data and documents used to recreate history, and specifically, the First World War. She decides to not establish the truth about the genesis of the First World War and instead, to find out if it is possible to establish the truth from documentary evidence available. She goes on to echo the sentiments of fellow historian (Sean McMeekin) who also argues against the reviving of the whole issue. Both scholars agree that the matter should be ignored as an honor to the victims and their families. However, she also mentions that if it were possible to trace the origin of the war through documentary evidence it would not be possible to trace all the necessary documents and scraps of paper related to the case. Additionally, she cautions against the fact that individuals, corporations and governments have lied (deliberately) to the public for a long time, and as such, they cannot be trusted to provide appropriate documentation. This brings out the marriage of the four disciplines and the areas of their differences very clearly. It is evident that the wars main concern was to end the political differences between two international forces. Secondly, the occurrences of the war had little to no effect on the literature that came out regarding the war in the years and decades after the occurrence of the wars. However, the war is the central point of the international political and social lives. This is brought out by the difference in the approaches offered by the countries that engaged in the war. As aforementioned, the main losers in the war, apart from the military personnel were the civilians. These civilians changed their public lives and their relationships were changed forever because of the war (Stránky, n.d).
When a community or a scholar understands that the disciplines are not only related, but they are also connected, it becomes easier for them to make these connections and follow them through a specific event in history. From the historical and literary perspectives, the Great War and the American civil war had a direct impact on the participating sides. This is unlike the cold war that had an indirect impact on the civilians and nationals of the participating countries. There were many literal changes in the lives of the nationals in which the wars took place due the increased presence of the military personnel, sometimes, from both sides. The loss of lives in the war, and other indirect effects such as the shortages of food, and restriction movement due to security reasons (Mombauer, 2013
) and with economic and political pressures (Stern and Wiglesworth, 2013), and the war on terrorism, were also significant catalysts in these changes. Since the advent of a political system that was rooted in a shared economic and political ideology, it was possible for the people of the participating countries to choose between a stable (traditional, social, and military) political system and the establishment of peace. On paper, peace cannot be made without the participation of a large number of people. The United States did this with, for obvious reasons, American support for a limited number of foreign fighters for which the US government refused to take any further. On the other hand, the United States was willing to pay for the use of military force, since the United States had little military force in Afghanistan and would not be willing to back down from a threat that would only harm our own interests. On the other hand, the two states did not give up control of their militaries, and the United States could only be an adversary if it could be defended. As the U.S. military was able to play both roles, it was necessary for the working class in Europe and the U.S. military to form a strong, solid opposition to these interventions.
The National Interest Against a New American Cold War From 1917 to 1945 The history of the Great War is largely an intellectual history by an American historian, particularly an intellectual who had worked through the war as its main historiologist. Although there are still great many myths and legends concerning the United States, they were invented at this time for many reasons: To explain how wars really started in 1917, some of the myths about the conflict often went unverifiable. The war had been going on for about three months at best. There was something of an all-out war to support the imperialist war effort. The government had failed to stop the attacks on the banks (1924) and the central bankers (1975) as they were being carried out (Mombauer, 2013). The war had also caused many of the great imperialist actions they wanted to take in the wake of the Civil War. There was also an increased use of force by the United States against a small number of smaller-scale and less-organized insurgent groups. In reality, the U.S. government had no choice but to try to stop fighting or make it happen. The war had broken out in the early months of 1918 on the orders of General Henry B. Stimson, the president of the Central Bank of Great Britain, who had been appointed Deputy Secretary of War by the Soviets to help negotiate a new deal for the United States. He also had ordered the end of the war in July 1919. General Bismarck came to office with a new plan: He had won victory on January 26, 1918, by putting in place a nationwide ban of arms shipments that had been suspended (Bismarck, 1915). Under Bismarck’s plan, which did not go into effect for three months, the United States would supply China with the bulk of the necessary troops at a very short notice (Bismarck, 1915; Stimson, 1917) and the USSR would be granted a permanent ban on