Comments on: Hail to Victory! http://www.historynet.com/hail-to-victory.htm From the World's Largest History Magazine Publisher Sat, 25 May 2013 21:06:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Luke Truxal http://www.historynet.com/hail-to-victory.htm#comment-283378 Luke Truxal Mon, 24 May 2010 19:30:19 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13682375#comment-283378 Did World War II change our expectations of war aims? It seems World War II may have had the same effect that the wars of German unification had on Germany prior to World War I. It appears that Germany and most European nations went into World War I thinking Franco-Prussian War and a decisive victory for one side or the other. In order to avoid the same mistake should the United States manage it's war expectations better in the post World War II era? I don't know if there is a correct answer to that. By limiting the war aims and expectations it becomes harder to sell the war to the citizens. Politicians have to get reelected and dictators need the support of the people. Citizens would seem less motivated if a politician limited war expectations in our current society that is much more media driven. However, if a nation such as the U.S. tried to sell a war by stating that they were going to win a massive victory and don't succeed on the pace that the media was expecting then there is another dilemma. In 1939 how would have the leader of Poland convinced his country that the best strategy would have been to retreat from the borders and kept his job? He probably wouldn't have. Governments can't always be responsible for managing realistic goals. Societies appear to make their own war aims even if the politicians or leaders attempt to set more realistic agendas. Looking back on it now I feel as if the United States went into Iraqi Freedom thinking Desert Storm. What they got was an insurgency. Maybe preparing a society for the future war is impossible because it will be viewed in the context of a previous war. Such as World War II, Desert Storm, Vietnam, and etc. Did World War II change our expectations of war aims? It seems World War II may have had the same effect that the wars of German unification had on Germany prior to World War I. It appears that Germany and most European nations went into World War I thinking Franco-Prussian War and a decisive victory for one side or the other.

In order to avoid the same mistake should the United States manage it's war expectations better in the post World War II era? I don't know if there is a correct answer to that. By limiting the war aims and expectations it becomes harder to sell the war to the citizens. Politicians have to get reelected and dictators need the support of the people. Citizens would seem less motivated if a politician limited war expectations in our current society that is much more media driven. However, if a nation such as the U.S. tried to sell a war by stating that they were going to win a massive victory and don't succeed on the pace that the media was expecting then there is another dilemma. In 1939 how would have the leader of Poland convinced his country that the best strategy would have been to retreat from the borders and kept his job? He probably wouldn't have.

Governments can't always be responsible for managing realistic goals. Societies appear to make their own war aims even if the politicians or leaders attempt to set more realistic agendas. Looking back on it now I feel as if the United States went into Iraqi Freedom thinking Desert Storm. What they got was an insurgency. Maybe preparing a society for the future war is impossible because it will be viewed in the context of a previous war. Such as World War II, Desert Storm, Vietnam, and etc.

]]> By: Bill Nance http://www.historynet.com/hail-to-victory.htm#comment-283233 Bill Nance Mon, 24 May 2010 02:46:03 +0000 http://www.historynet.com/?p=13682375#comment-283233 Let us remember what the great prussian sage had to say on the topic. War is a continuation of politics by other means. Nations go to war with specific war aims in mind. It is possible (through negotiations or otherwise) for each to achieve their war aims, thus making peace likely. A candidate for this example could be the Egyptian portion of the 73 war. I think that the reason so many wars in the 20th century have been fought to less than satisfactory conclusions is that we as a society (western society) have become less inured to the horrors of war, and thus more likely to accept a negotiated settlement. Unfortunately this tendency is a weakness if our enemies don't feel the same way. Another interesting point could be that wars that end in victory - e.g. one side imposing its will upon the other - generally are better for overall longterm international stability. Settlements that do not settle the matter at hand merely postpone the inevitable resumption of hostilities. Let us remember what the great prussian sage had to say on the topic.

War is a continuation of politics by other means.

Nations go to war with specific war aims in mind. It is possible (through negotiations or otherwise) for each to achieve their war aims, thus making peace likely. A candidate for this example could be the Egyptian portion of the 73 war.

I think that the reason so many wars in the 20th century have been fought to less than satisfactory conclusions is that we as a society (western society) have become less inured to the horrors of war, and thus more likely to accept a negotiated settlement. Unfortunately this tendency is a weakness if our enemies don't feel the same way.

Another interesting point could be that wars that end in victory – e.g. one side imposing its will upon the other – generally are better for overall longterm international stability. Settlements that do not settle the matter at hand merely postpone the inevitable resumption of hostilities.

]]>