WWI, Honor, and U.S. Foreign Policy

Yesterday marked 100 years since the end of the First World War. TheWashington Post’s Monkey Cage blog used the occasion to publishan excellent commentary, based on alonger academic journal article, by political scientists Alexander Lanoszka and  Michael A. Hunzeker. They argue that the Great War could have actually ended long before the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918. Two years earlier, in December 1916, both “Germany and the United States issued peace overtures” that, if heeded, “could have spared c ountless lives and have helped Europe escape the financial ruin and deep-seated animosity that produced World War II,” Lanoszka and Hunzeker explain. “Unfortunately, the Entente — Britain, France and Russia — dismissed both offers, and the fighting continued.”At the time, all sides were facing catastrophic losses, financial insolvency, and a virtual stalemate on the battlefield. An armistice then would have been a great relief to the warring parties. So why did the Entente powers reject peace? According to  Lanoszka and Hunzeker, “Honor pushed the Entente to prefer war over peace despite the overwhelming costs and risks…[For the Entente,] Honor was worth the material price, no matter how high. Germany was unapologetic about its transgressions.  Atrocities in Belgium and repeated frustrations on the battlefield to win and exact punishment made national honor take priority over national survival. War aims expanded; b...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs