Saturday, November 10, 2018

On the 100th Anniversary of the Armistice

Rutherford Cardinal Johnson, PhD, FPRS, FRGS
Count of Sainte Animie, Imperial Patriarch of St. Stephen

The Cardinal Count of Sainte Animie
in a uniform of the Walsingham Guard,
the humanitarian wing of the Imperial
Patriarchate of St. Stephen with
military heritage dating back to the
Crusades and early years of the
Holy Roman Empire. Aspects of the
Guard's heritage are shared with
both sides of the Great War.
As we raise our swords and dip the colours in salute to the millions who died in the Great War (World War I) on this hundredth anniversary of the Armistice, it is interesting to note that the causes of the war are still being debated. It was a spark that snowballed into a global conflict. Fingers pointed, and blame was passed faster than a game of hot potato. Being of an ethno-religious Catholic minority that shares ancient heritage with both sides of the war, I especially believe in a cautious approach to the analysis of cause. Of course, growing up in the United States, I heard and indeed believed the rhetoric common to the Allied countries that it was Germany and especially Wilhelm II who was entirely to blame. Yet, particularly when the start was considered the assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, some things did not quite seem logical. How did Austria putting down a Serbian rebellion lead to a global conflict, much less blame being placed on Germany? Has blame been mislaid? Have we been misled over the last century? 

It is true enough that Wilhelm II encouraged the Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz Josef to put down the social-democrat rebellion that involved the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. The Allied countries also demonstrated their willingness in history to do the same thing. Also, Austria asked for and received Germany’s assurance of support in the event of need, as there was a possibility that the Russian Empire might oppose Austria since the Serbs are Slavs. Wilhelm II contact Tsar Nicholas II to try to dissuade him from war with Austria (and hence also with Germany), but to no avail. The war happened. 

And why did Germany invade France? The French and Russians had a long-standing treaty. War with Russia brought France into the war. Germany chose a strategic move of declaring war and striking first rather than waiting to be squeezed from both sides (which ultimately is what happened as the war dragged on). 

Belgium declared neutrality, but Germany invaded Belgium in order to outflank the French. I rather expect the Allied nations in a similar situation would do the same. However, Britain used that as a justification for entering the war – placing them, ironically, on the side of France, with whom they had centuries of wars. The British royal family, Saxe-Coburg-und Gotha, even changed its name to the now-familiar “Windsor,” after one of their castles. Britain was understandably concerned about German domination on the continent, but now the entire conflict had exploded to almost the entirety of Europe, with Germany and Austria fighting on two fronts. 

Then enter the United States in 1917. The sinking of the British liner Lusitania by German U-boats (submarines), which had a good number of American passengers, was used as a partial justification for entering the war. The Germans said she was a legitimate military target for carrying arms, which the British denied. However, it has since been shown that the Lusitania likely was carrying ammunition for small arms in compartments designed especially for that purpose. The unrestricted submarine warfare, coupled with a communique from Germany to Mexico asking for their support in the event that the United States entered the war (in return for reclaiming parts of the U.S.) actually caused Woodrow Wilson’s request to Congress for a declaration of war to be granted – even though no actual attack against American soil had taken place. Wilson gave as part of his justification his belief that the U.S. should spread American-style democracy around the globe, much as is discussed in present U.S. conflicts. 

So, where is the blame to be laid? It all started with a Serbian terrorist group. Why not there? Or why not Austria-Hungary, who sought to put down the rebellion in Serbia, rather than blaming Germany? Or how about with the Russian Empire, whose entry couple with the Franco-Russian Treaty caused the opening of the Western Front? Was Britain justified in entering the war simply because Belgium had been invaded for strategic military purposes, or was Britain’s action merely out of fear? Was the United States really justified in entering the war, or was it a “strike first” approach like Germany used? It is truly difficult to pinpoint one culprit, though propagandists find no trouble doing so. 

The reality is that the Great War was a tragedy that had been brewing at least since the Franco-Prussian War, but still did not need to happen. A simple rebellion sparked an inferno that engulfed much of the world and changed the face of Europe. The terms of the armistice were also so punitive towards Germany that it opened the gates for Hitler to take over. Indeed, the seeds for the Second World War were sewn in part by the Allies in the terms of the treaty at the end of the First World War. The Great War was a tragedy that spanned not only the four years of its direct conflict, but for decades after, even into the death and destruction of the Second World War. If we want to know the culprit for the Great War, like in so many tragedies in history, we humans, no matter our flag, need only look in the mirror. Ultimately the blame game is unhealthy and a detriment to true healing and harmony.