Strayer: Intro to chapter 21 and Chapter 21 reading

The introduction argues when the 20^th Century really ended, whether after the Cold War ended or after 9/11, but I personally believe that for most people the notion of the 20^th Century worldview ended after 9/11. I remember once actually watching the film, “Clear And Present Danger” based on the Tom Clancy novel, and a commentator on whatever channel it was described it as a “period piece” because it reflected a time between the Cold War and 9/11 when it was very feasible to see other things like the war on drugs being more of a threat to national security than conventional foes or terrorists, in the context of 20^th Century worldviews versus Post-9/11 world views.

Strayer on page 618 in so many words is saying that the Chinese and Russian communist revolutions were social experiments that sought to create an alternative world to the capitalist system.  But, they were the apotheosis of past revolutions that had attempted to garner gains for the working class. Another feature of the 20^th Century that Strayer notes is the end of empires, and the rise of Republican states. And he suggests that with more freedoms populations grew more dramatically than they had during the age of empires.

It was interesting that Strayer began chapter 21 talking about a WWI veteran being dismayed about how WWI wasn’t “the war to end all wars,” that he’d seen so much bloody conflict in his own lifetime, but he was also glad that a stronger, more integrated world came out of it in the long run. It certainly wasn’t when you consider that had the Treaty of Versailles been a lot less vindictive and more amicable to the Germans in terms of territories they lost and the reparations payment play they were forced to abide by, the possibility of another world war might have been a little more remote or at least put off a little longer, suggests Strayer on pages 631 – 632.

Strayer describes WWI as “an accident waiting to happen,” but one who knows the history of the conflict would actually surmize that there was a certain eagerness to prosecute the war  in the beginning on the part of the powers involved. I remember British euphemisms from the time that said, “This will be a jolly good war,” or “This war will be short and we’ll be home for Christmas (which Strayer also quotes on page 629, last paragraph).” But, that was not to be so. It was really a mess of entanglements via treaties in which one party would feel obligated to to attack in equal measure the other if their ally were attacked. It’s hard not to entertain counterfactuals like, if only one of the powers had refused to honor their treaties and refused to participate. That might have dissuaded other powers from taking part.  Strayer only indicates on page 627 that it was an accident of history because nobody anticipated the assassination of the Arch-Duke of the Austro-Hungarian Empire would happen, nor that it would be the spark for the conflict. But, he indicates on page 629 that there was a military-industrial complex on all sides that had lots of munitions and troops being unused, so perhaps there was a certain ambition to test out their readiness to fight rather than let the armed forces go to waste.