Whispers from Sarajevo
A Lesson from World War One

by Paul Miniato

The last few weeks before the onslaught of World War One bear a stark resemblance to the events of today. The murder of two members of the Austrian royal family is in no way comparable to the destruction of over 5000 American civilians six weeks ago. However, we face the same dangers that our forefathers did in 1914.

One hundred years ago, the Balkans was one of the world's hot spots, and several countries had been involved there in lesser scale wars. Out of the ashes of ancient empires, and fueled by years of war, oppression and nationalist sentiments, groups of terrorists formed to overthrow the established order through violence. Some of them were prepared to die and carried suicide pills as well as bombs.

On June 28, 1914, a group of Bosnian Serbs known as the "Black Hand" assassinated the Austrian Archduke and Archduchess in Sarajevo. How the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the rest of Europe responded largely determined the shape of the 20th Century.

Attempts were made to link this terrorist attack to the Serbian government, without success, but evidence was found linking the Black Hand to Serbian nationals. Public opinion throughout much of Europe sympathized with the Austrian demand that Serbia should be punished for failing to control its nationalist extremists. About a week after the attacks, Austria received what it considered a "blank check" from Germany for whatever action Austria might decide to take.

While Austria-Hungary debated their course of action, the countries of Central Europe declared their loyalties with one side or the other. Although war had not yet been declared, sides were chosen. Serbia had the implicit backing of Russia, and historians suspect that Russia may have received assurances of support from France during that period.

On July 23, over three weeks after the original attack, Austria handed Serbia a 48-hour ultimatum. Although Serbia replied with a conciliatory response, they rejected key demands of the Austrians, and five days later, the Austro-Hungarian Empire declared war on Serbia. German and British politicians attempted to gain assurances that the military action would "halt in Belgrade". But, four days later, in response to Russian mobilization in support of Serbia, Germany declared war on Russia. In the following few days, Germany first requested and then simply took control of Luxembourg and Belgium as "essential assets" in its military movements. Within a week, France and Britain were also at war with Germany. And, so in less than 40 days, a terrorist incident had escalated into a World War that would consume a generation.

What follows, though, is even more instructive, for who among the original actors could have foreseen the results that were to come from their decisions? Such is the unpredictability of war.

By the time the "Great War to End All Wars" was over, all of the following unimaginable events had come to pass.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was defeated and dismembered.

The Ottoman Empire collapsed leaving a power vacuum in the Middle East.

Russia fell to its own fanatical ideologues, unleashing a reign of terror that lasted for 75 years, and at times threatened half the world.

Germany was defeated, and placed under such an onerous and one-sided "treaty settlement" that the rise of a Hitler and Nazism in less than 15 years was virtually assured.

Britain, France and the Netherlands lost considerable influence in their own foreign empires.

The entry into the war of the United States was accompanied by the biggest single episode of loss of domestic liberty in that country's history.

Tragically, the war consumed millions upon millions of lives. Horrible new weapons, such as "mustard gas" left behind a generation either under the ground, or incapacitated. Anthrax may have been used for the first time. After four years, the world was definitely sick of war. Yet less than 20 years after the ink had dried on the Armistice, a new, even greater World War was under way. The "war to end all wars" had been a tragic and costly failure. In its wake came a century of bloody follow-up.

It is tempting to imagine that such a wild and unpredictable course of events is a thing of the past. We want to believe that if only our intentions are good and our cause is just, we can unleash the power and violence of war, and steer it to a successful and limited conclusion. If there is one lesson of World War One that we should be open to, it is the horrific unpredictability of warfare.

If we are prepared to consider that lesson, we have to ask ourselves what sorts of unexpected events might we encounter if we choose war. Which empires will collapse? What new countries will fall to their own fanatical ideologues? Where will the new waves of refugees ebb, and flow, and starve? What horrible new weapons will be unleashed upon both fighting men and civilian populations? Whose millions will die? And, when we grow sick to the heart of the endless "war to end all terrorism", will the world be a safer place?

On July 7, 1914, about ten days after the original terrorist attack in Sarajevo, the administration of Austria-Hungary were engaged in a debate on whether to take military action, or pursue a judicial and diplomatic course. In short, was it to be war or justice? Key Austrians in government favored military retaliation; the Hungarian Prime Minister favored a quest for justice without war. Is it possible they could have understood the importance of this debate to the 20th Century and the lives of millions?

Can we better answer this momentous question with hindsight? What would it have taken to defuse the Sarajevo incident and avert World War One? Some historians say there was then a lack of European statesmen who could have pushed for justice and security instead of vengeance and war. Who might have come forward and changed the course of history?

One month ago, we stood at the threshold of two doors, one marked "Justice & Security", the other marked "War & Vengeance". We have now opened the latter and are stumbling through it. If we push on, there will be no turning back. May our children forgive us for it.

If we step back and choose the door marked "Justice & Security", there will be no guarantees. Before we can achieve justice and counter the threats of future terrorism, more innocent people will very likely die. The leaders who come forward and stand up for this course must have the "belly for it", the courage to risk their own lives, even at the hands of their own people. Those who steer the wise and balanced course can expect to earn the hatred of the crazies among us. Do we have what it will take?

Or will we console ourselves with some future poem about the dead who lie beneath the poppies in Flanders Fields?

(Written Sept. 23, 2001. Revised Oct. 20, 2001. Published at LewRockwell.com Oct. 23. 2001.)

Reprinted in Pravda (Oct.24, 2001.)

Linked from Antiwar.com, Free-Market.Net (Oct. 24, 2001.)

Syndicated interview with R. Emmett McAuliffe on KMOX St. Louis (Oct.27, 2001.)

Letters:

While I don't necessarily agree that WW1 and today are comparable, I do think it is a fascinating perspective and does offer much food for thought. M.D.O.

I read it with great interest and concern. Talking to the "Remnants" I know, but it's an insightful and thought provoking article and deserves to be read. R.B.

It's completely excellent.. And none of the events of the past couple of weeks contradicts or outdates the logic of it. We need to keep speaking it; it's never too late to stop escalating something that doesn't work. Thanks heaps. H.B.

It hits the nail on the head. September 11th is still incomprehensible to me also, I can't understand how one person can generate that much hate, and why the sheep follow, but it's not the first nor the last time. D.L.

Superb. L.R.

Could you briefly just mention a couple of items in regards to your statement from your article. "The entry into the war of the United States was accompanied by the biggest single episode of loss of domestic liberty in that country's history." D.M.

The Author replies: I would recommend checking out J.D.Tuccille's Spotlight on War and Liberty. There are links to hundreds of resources on this subject. One of those resources, "How War Amplified Federal Power in the Twentieth Century" by Robert Higgs, contains a litany of examples. Those desiring more depth are referred to Higgs book on the subject Crisis and Leviathan.

I agree with your analogy and assessment. There is a madness that is associated with hubris; até the Ancient Greeks called it. I think we have slipped into até and any challenge to our authority/actions will bring more madness, leading to nemesis. If this is not Armageddon (it may be), it is the beginning of the end for the American Empire. It saddens me that we (USA) were not content to remain a republic (or at least attempt to remain one). Thank you very much. Sincerely Yours. R.M.

Two events that might add to your article are the Austro-Hungarian annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina from the Ottoman Empire in 1908, and the refusal to negotiate after the assassination. Here is the original (translated) ultimatum and (translated) response. Note that point #5 is not even "rejected" as is so often misstated. It is left open for clarification. Diplomatically speaking, the Austro-Hungarians were looking to invade, and didn't even bother coming back to "clarify" or negotiate with Serbia. I point this out as a sad parallel on our current situation. On the basis of almost no evidence, we bomb a country, after failing to negotiate when the Taliban offered to extradite bin Laden. Good article. J.K.

That was wonderful. I fear most will not read this, but I am sure that if they did, there just might be some changed minds. Thanks, we needed that. Yours. J.R.T.

This is fantastic. Thank You. J.K.

A Short Parable. The other view of "which door to take". I am not sure it adds much to the challenges that we face but I thought that you might find it an interesting view even though you will disagree with it. B.B.

Peace Activist Etiquette

With all of this talk of impending war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001. These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a non-violent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost. We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

# # #

The Author replies: This parable sets up a straw man. The alternative to "Vengeance & War", is not a door marked "Turn the Other Cheek", or "Pretend it Didn't Happen", or "We Deserved It". Entering the door marked "Justice & Security" means bringing those responsible to justice, and removing the actual threats. War is a rather blunt instrument for those aims. Before we engage in it, we might look at whether it can be a Just War. We started off with the death count at civilians 5000+, terrorists 19. By my best guess, we're now approaching civilians 6000, and terrorists 20. And we've just started. So, how should we rework the ending to the parable? When "War Party" punches me in the face, do I defend myself, call the cops, and help bring him to justice. Or, do I toss a small nuke into his back yard. That'll show him. Too bad about the neighborhood.

Don't Get Your Hopes Up. Sir I suspect that most folks have forgotten the things of which you speak - I haven't and I well remember what happened in the Argonne, Ypres etc. "I have a rendezvous with death, at some forgotten barricade..." How many young men will be singing the hip hop equivalent of that one? God bless. M.P.

Congrats on your article. Too true, I'm afraid. Who was it who said that "History is one god damned thing after another"? Lew has an excellent page and is right on the money (and in their faces) most of the time. I check it out regularly. V.M.

Congratulations on a magnificent article. Best regards, W.B.

Thanks for your article, very thought provocking, and timely. We need some balance to all the rhetoric out there. A.L.

This is truly a superb essay. Great writing! K.P.

Thanks for the sane article....we have to hang together. Lets form a national and international organization that includes other media like art bell etc..and that educates from the bottom up; that has a charter to keep it that way, so as to keep the leaders responsible by this, and make it where the bottom rules and they a have chance to be leaders. C.W.

Thank you for the article. I am a 54 year old grandpa, patriot, gun carrying, fly the flag, American. I enjoyed your article more than anything I have read in a couple of years. I too believe we have chosen the wrong door. Thanks. R.C.

"Those who steer the wise and balanced course can expect to earn the hatred of the crazies among us." I think, sir, that you vastly underestimate the number of crazies. They are in fact, by quite a margin, the majority, and are well-represented in the cabinet. Donald Rumsfeld comes to mind. If I were you, I would concentrate on doing everything I could to estrange Canadians from the United States and its insane foreign policy. It is probably far too late for us: we have been dancing for almost a century, and the piper's bill is going to be a little on the high side. S.D.

Excellent article. Playing the devil's advocate, I present the following "counter-arguments":
- If England and France had taken military action sooner (i.e., in the mid-thirties instead of 1939, they perhaps could have thwarted Hitler).
- Rome did quite well (for the times) by conquering other nations, and taking extreme action in the name of retribution.
- None of the powers that might oppose the USA (in the "Islamic" war) have anywhere near its military might, whereas in WW1, the forces were roughly equal, with an edge to the non-Germanic forces.
- It may not be possible to seek justice without triggering a war. Or, put another way, if the US were to seek justice, but always stop short of doing anything that might trigger a war, the US may find itself in so feeble a position that all its energies would be devoted to protecting itself from attack. That may not be such a bad thing, though chess players always say: the best defence is offence.
Enough of that.
I wonder whether the US would do well to admit its past mistakes, and"promise" never again to back dictatorships of any kind, whether or not they oppose a common enemy. The US's record of diplomacy is abysmal. Conversely, the gratitude of those the Americans have aided, is often non-existent.
In San Francisco, I spoke with a Vietnam vet (Marines) from Virginia, who continues to do contract work for the US military. He asked: "Who are our friends?" and listed one after the other who, in his opinion, did not merit the term. He had especially harsh words for the Saudis. His thinking was to move away from the Roman policy, and though he didn't use the term, "isolationism" wasn't very far from his lips. A.R.

I was really moved by your article on LewRockwell.com. Nice work. Scary times. C.W.

Bravo for your informative piece on LRC yesterday. From another Canadian libertarian activist. M.M.

Brilliant: Your insight is staggering. Right On! A.H.

Good! I have seen your article in THE FREEDOM NETWORK. You are right! I read that you are a businessman, but you write as a professor and a forecaster. I suppose that when someone lives in Vancouver, he is biased: more pacifist, I mean. But you are right; in my opinion we need more intelligence and less bombs. All the best, F.S.

Just a note to say you wrote a really nice column. I was in Bosnia a few years ago, and did a little research on the history of the Balkans. You are spot on. Now, having said that, how do you feel about being prescient, correct, and morally right, and not being able to do a thing about it? Frustrating, isn't it? There is no hope. We, Americans, will not elect those of a moral character, and that is what the Founding Fathers, to my knowledge, stated was necessary for the continuation of the Republic. Best to you and keep writing, your writing is both educational and entertaining. Aloha, B.S.

Great article. If there's anything I can do to help, let me know. P.B.

Question: I found your article interesting. I'm not really up on my history. I agree war is not the answer but what is the answer? What would you do if you were President or Prime Minister? I've asked this question many times and no takers. The only answer I came up with was completely shut down borders until application and tracking process could be updated. But what about global terrorism? Should we be concerned or it's every country for itself? Also I just can't picture bin Laden sitting at a table discussing peace. D.S.G.

The Author replies: As far as bin Laden and his gang are concerned, we should be going after him. (See "Short Parable" above.) Something like the way the Israeli Mossad got WW2 War Criminal Adolph Eichmann. (They didn't bomb Argentina.) US. Representative (Tx) Ron Paul's suggestion might help. Maybe Colin Powell could use some support.
We are also going to learn that we must all play a role in our defence: see Wendy McElroy's article, for instance. The Advocate for Self Government have some good points.
This are just a few suggestions. I'm still thinking about a longer answer.
We need much more intelligence (in every sense of the word). We need to know what motivates the enemy, how he can recruit, how he operates. In the meantime, maybe we could slow down a little in the march to war while we figure out we're up against.

We read your article and found it very well researched and written. However, you're a voice, crying in the wilderness. No doubt you have many supporters of your views, but the various governments will plow on, regardless , and who knows what the consequences will be. Lets keep our fingers crossed. O.M.

Hatred Out: I read your article "Whispers from Sarajevo". We need your work. Love and Peace. R.K.

Using Religion for War: attachment (anon.)

The Author replies: I do not have the knowledge of Islam to comment on the content of this claim. (I also wonder if the author, who did not identify himself or the source of the article -- which I had to discover for myself -- has an axe to grind.) I know there are similar passages in Christian and Jewish holybooks, yet Christian and Jewish (and Hindu) terrorists are also a small minority. In the past Christians burned witches, tortured heretics and fought unholy holy wars, and justified it with biblical readings. 30 years ago many of the terrorists we were concerned with were Red and probably atheist. So what?
One thing I do know is that going to war against 20% of the population of the world is not going to make the world a better or safer place.

Fine piece. Needs one correction, details thanks to a spy in Belgrade:
"on June 28, 1914, a group of Bosnian Serbs known as the "Black Hand" assassinated the Austrian Archduke and Archduchess in Sarajevo. How the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the rest of Europe responded largely determined the shape of the 20th Century."
Not Black Hand.
The "Black hand" was a military secret organization formed by Serbian army officers. The leader was colonel Dragutin Dimitrijevic known as "Apis." Col. Dimitrijevic was one of many young Serbian army officers who formed this secret organization first known as "Conspirators" in 1903, with the main goal being to overthrow the Obrenovic royal family, which they succeeded at.
The official name of this Apis' organization in Serbian was "Crna ruka" and in 191? it was re-named as "Unification or Death" (in Serbian "Ujedinjenje ili smrt")
The organization which actually took a part in the assassination of the Austrian archduke in Sarajevo in 1914 was (in Serbian "Mlada Bosna") - "Young Bosnia," although formed mostly of Serbs also had Ivo Andric (The Bridge on the Drina) and several Muslim Bosnians, as for example Muhamad Mehmedbasic. You can see all the conspirators in a photo, standing along the river, with the Archduke's car passing.
Colonel "Apis" was sentenced to death and executed (with others six army officers) for conspiracy against the Karageorgevic royal family in famous and totally fake court martial process in Thessaloniki in 1917, during WWI.
In 1917. Regent Alexander I formed a contra organization from loyal army officers. taking the name "White hand". They were pro Karageorgevic J.P.M.

The Author replies: I have not yet been able to confirm this one way or the other as yet. It would seem that at least one of the assassins was apparently a member of both groups. Some things never change.

It is some comfort to know that there are other people who see the parallels of todays conflict and those from the past. I thought about the Ferdinand over a week ago, but most americans could not pick him out as the arch-duke from a multiple choice quiz. The latest polls state 96% of americans support the bombings in afghanistan. History shows us a complete correlation of astounding wealth and moral turpidity. Hey, but keep up the good work man, maybe we can drop that number to 90% and that is indeed a practical worthwhile goal. T.H.

Understanding the "Great War": This passage was written by John Mac Gavock Grider, Sept. 1918. The passage is a diary entry and was written as Lt. Grider was in the latter stages of what was termed "shell shock" in his war and "combat fatigue" in a later war. Lt. Grider was a WWI aviator who was shot down sometime in September of 1918 - just two months short of the armistice. The passage is from the book War Birds, subtitled Diary of an Unknown Aviator written in 1927 by Elliot Springs, a squadron mate of Lt. Grider....

"War is a horrible thing, a grotesque comedy, and it is so useless. This war won't prove anything. All we'll do when we win is substitute on sort of dictator for another. In the meantime we have destroyed our best resources. Human life, the most precious thing in the world, has become the cheapest. After we've won this war by drowning the hun in our own blood, in five years time the sentimental fools at home will be taking up a collection for this same enemy hun that are killing us now, and our fool politicians will be cooking up another good war. Why shouldn't they? They have to keep the public stirred up to keep their jobs and they don't have to fight and they can get soft berths for their sons and their friend's sons. To me the most contemptible cur in the world is the man who lets political influence be used to keep him away from the front, for he lets another man die in his place. The worst thing about this war is that it takes the best. If it lasts long enough, the world will be populated by cowards and weaklings and their children."

... Too bad men like Grider died in a useless and contrived war. Perhaps these deaths are for a purpose, look what their death left behind for our present social stock. Some 50 years after Lt. Grider wrote this I too had my war and like Grider I watched the politicians march our best young men off to die in another useless and contrived war that benefited no one but the money men, the central bankers. What is so depressing is that nothing changes. The money men will continue to kill off our best, brightest and most able, leaving the likes of Bill Clinton and George Bush to carry on their avaricious policies. More will die useless deaths and the money men and their children will grow fatter and sleeker off their induced death and carnage. In the end one can only wonder how well the money men will enjoy the world they created. When I look at the state of present day Africa (A place where yet more of my friends died fighting a useless cause because they were betrayed by their politicians) I wonder how much the money men will enjoy their bloody, ill gotten, gains in a world inhabited by imbecilic mediocricity. A.S.

Terrorist or Freedom Fighter? It is so very interesting to observe how the terminology we use to describe history changes in light of the political climate the reiterations of history are being made in. In 1914 the Gavrilo Princip was branded a 'terrorist' for what was seen to be a horrible act against a 'benevolent' empire. From 1918 through the 1990's Princip was seen as a hero, a liberator, a bringer of freedom. Statues of him were found in Prague and Romania, history books in various European countries (France, Italy, Hungary, Greece, England and others) called him an assassin, while the US history books decided not to name him or even mention what he had done. These statements were qualified by the suggestion that he was a 'revolutionary' seeking to liberate Bosnia and the Balkans from the Empires feeding off of them and oppressing them, making his assassination of the Archduke and his wife seem more understandable.
In your recent article on the potential similarities between our current situation and that of the beginning of WWI you unequivocally call him a terrorist, and by default the only difference is in the number of people killed. Prague removed his statue; I don't know what happened to the one in Bucharest, though I'm not even sure it made it past WWII. It seems that the distinction between terrorist and assassin is no longer important, and certainly it wouldn't suit the political climate to continue viewing a Serb as a 'liberator' or even 'revolutionary'.
But in any case I am writing to you to clarify a few points I think you have glossed over, such as the simplification above, and also: the Black Hand was not only made up of Bosnian Serbs-- indeed, it had more than a few Bosnian Muslims and Bosnians from mixed marriages in it. Why are these two points important?
Well, in short, reductive and often manipulative historical recollections in the areas of 'terrorism', 'war,' and 'self-determination' like the one you wrote can be extremely misleading, especially when they utilize such loaded terms AND make utterly wrong assertions (e.g. the one about the Black Hand).
The issue of a distinction between 'freedom fighters' and 'terrorists' is very pertinent to today's situation too: 11 years ago Bin Laden was one of those hailed as a 'freedom fighter' and now this terminology has changed to 'terrorist' mastermind. The problem inherent in this flip is that the US endorsed and assisted Bin Laden's terrorism when its target was Soviet, and recently brands him a terrorist when he commits terrorism against the US (and I am referring more to the bombing of the Cole and the US Embassies than to the WTC/Pentagon). Does this mean that the US will just as easily flip the terminology in reference to Kosovo, where it is now clear that the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army started, grew, and continues to be a murderous group of militant, drug- and slave-running terrorist insurgents bent on carving out a larger portion of the Balkans with the open assistance of the US in order to expand the backward, anarchic, proto-fundamentalist Islamic fiefdom called Albania? The plan behind the conflict there, as well as Afghanistan is concerned with oil pipelines and Anglo-American oil monopolies much more than with human rights and Western civilization versus terrorism and religious fundamentalism.
Aside from the flimsy (or formally false) analogy to WWI, and your problematic terminology, I think your article is very convincing, and I am also of the opinion that we should be pursuing Justice rather than Vengeance. Thank you for arguing what may be understood by some as a radical, un-patriotic perspective, and please continue to publish the stuff; just try to be attentive to how you and others go between the terms that we use to describe the world's events so as not to mislead the unbelievably gullible and under-educated American population at-large. R.P.

The Author replies: As you so aptly point out, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Bin Laden's magical switch from "freedom fighter" to "terrorist" is a big part of what this is all about, isn't it? I used the terminology of the day in describing the assassins with the aim of underscoring the parallels as I saw them; I regret I was not more explicit. Whether they were in fact terrorists or freedom fighters does not, as you point out, detract from the overall point. My apologies, however, for my superficial and inaccurate portrayal of the membership and motivations of the Black Hand. My apologies also if I contributed to the modern myth of the "evil Serb"; this was not my intention. Finally, you may be interested in this article I wrote on the War on Yugoslavia in 1999. I'm sure it contains even more factual errors, but it was the best I could do at the time.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts in: Whispers from Sarajevo A Lesson from World War One. We have sent it to many of our friends who are on the "edge" regarding our government's present actions. Kind regards, B. & M.U.

Excellent letter. Will print it and take it home to my wife. J.D.

Thanks.. You did a good job. Congrats. Take care. T.N.

I will keep this simplistic and won't bother with reams of documentation, but what say you to the following lines of argument:
The fundamental cause of WWI was the rivalry between Britain/France/US and Germany over the division and control of the third world into colonial empires. There was a ferocious arms race between Britain and Germany for at least 8-10 years previous to 1914. When the whole of europe was a powder keg, any of a 100 sparks could have touched it off. The particular one that did is almost a historical accident. If the assassination had not happened, something else would almost certainly have triggered WWI within 5-10 years.
More interesting, and less often considered is the following:
The fundamental alliances in WWI and WWII were determined by the division of industrialized countries into those that had major colonial empires and those that did not. US/Britain/France all had major empires ( I consider US control of Latin America here) whereas Germany/Italy/Japan had been later to industrialize and therefore late to the table when the rest of the world was divided into colonial empires. Assume, say, British colonial control of an area locked the Germans out of resources, markets, and highly-profitable trade and investment opportunities in that area - maybe not totally but at least to a significant degree. Such a lock-out would be disastrous for the long-term industrial and financial development and power of the losing countries - thus the underlying motive for the wars. There is an interesting secondary point here: whether the "economic gains from colonies" argument is true or not, the leaders may well have thought and acted as if it was. Or it may not have been true for the country as a whole, but the leaders may have had ties to the corporations for which it was true, and been placing those interests above the national interest. W.W.

The Author replies: Clearly Europe in 1914 was a powderkeg waiting for a spark. And clearly the rivalry over control of colonial resources was important. Doesn't seem very different from the world today, does it? That's why we need to be more careful with matches. We may not have the power to prevent WW3. We definitely have the power to start it.

Sarajevo & WWI: I would [not] compare Gavrilo Princip act with today's terrorism. By my standards, Gavrilo was a natanalist who wanted Serb people to live free with no opression of Germans. They had occupied Serbian land. Serbs did not go to fight for Vienna. We have to make real definition , what the terrorism is? By my opinion: Terrorism is if somebody rains the bombs for 78 days, distroying ,water supply, electricity, infrastructure, schools, hospitals, bridges terrorising 10 million people for the sake of terrorist KLA organisation. You remember very well 24 March 1999. 78 days of terror. When little Christian nation, (contributed to world peace more than any other nation, 3 million died in two wars) is sacrified for the sake of Moslam fundamentalist and OSAMA BIN LADEN ' to provide USA and England good reputation in the Moslem world for their dirty policy in the Middle East. Another word for me the best discription for terrorism is: "NATO, humen rights, democracy, civil liberty, third world order'' western slogans for they dirty policy and hipocrisy. Do not tell me that is not an unbeateble fact. Are Mladic, Milosevic and Karadjic terrorists or patriots who have been prevented to defend their fatherland by USA and ENGLAND, two main calprits for todays insecure world. This two nation who represent only 6% of world population controlling over 50% world resources.Is this fair ? This is terrorism sir. If you respond to my letter next time I will tell you more about Balkan and world history. Western history is written by the winners rather then justice and truth. Thank you. V.P.

The Author replies: The best I can do is to refer you to a previous comment I received with a similar message.

What were the total casualties of WWI? R.E.M.

The Author replies: The best estimate I have is as follows. Out of a total of 65 million men mobilized, 8.5 million died. Germany, Russia, France and Austria-Hungary lost more than a million each. (The US lost over 100,000, Canada over 50,000.) Another 21 million were wounded, and 7.5 million missing or taken prisoner. In addition, close to 10 million deaths among the civilian populations were caused indirectly by the war.

Pravda: If you would have told me 28 years ago that in 2001 I would read an article in Pravda written by a Canadian libertarian questioning the logic of going to war because a group of Muslim terrorists had destroyed the World Trade Centre towers .....
I can't even finish the sentence with a preposterous enough ending. No fiction writer on earth has ever had the imagination to paint a picture as bizarre as what is unfolding.
They seem to have reprinted the article intact. "Russia fell to its own fanatical ideologues, unleashing a reign of terror that lasted for 75 years, and at times threatened half the world." Now tell me that this quote would have appeared in Pravda in 1973! Yet it did today. Funny isn't it. Pravda means Truth doesn't it?
Here is a scarier quote from the same author in the same article. "The leaders who come forward and stand up for this course must have the "belly for it", the courage to risk their own lives, even at the hands of their own people. Those who steer the wise and balanced course can expect to earn the hatred of the crazies among us. Do we have what it will take?
Consider that you are one who came forward. You have opened up something that perhaps has been hidden from human view before. Namely the possibility that all wars throughout all time needn't have happened, that perhaps all could have simply been avoided and that millions upon millions died for nothing.
One month ago, we stood at the threshold of two doors, one marked "Justice & Security", the other marked "War & Vengeance". You have done what all great writers do. You have reduced all of politics, all of what government is and always shall be, to a single choice. You have taken something so complex that it has befuddled mankind for our civilized history and reduced it to its fundamental essence. I know that you are not the first to say this. Doesn't matter. Do not underestimate your accomplishment.
So you are a leader. How far this will go is not important and is out of your control anyway unless you back out. But consider that you are spreading faster than a lot of viruses out there. Anthrax is apparently not contagious, but human ideas are.
You can count on me for any support you need. R.B.

The Author replies: Don't you know that Pravda read LewRockwell.com all the time?!

When would the use of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear weapons) be justified? R.?.

The Author replies: I can't imagine any situation where the use of weapons of mass destruction would be justified. I can, however, imagine their being used. When I hear public officials talking about the need to consider the use of nuclear weapons on Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern countries, it scares me silly!