Lessons Learned from WWI, WWII and Vietnam War - Essay Example

Lessons Learned from WWI, WWII and Vietnam War War is a great catastrophe in human history and to make matters worse, those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. The WWI started as a simple war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia as a result of assassination of crown prince Franz Ferdinand. However, it is the actions of leaders that made it escalate into a full blown war that lasted from 1914 to 1918 entangling the whole world in the process. As if no lessons were learned from this experience, a Second World War broke out from 1939 to 1945. To make matters worse, a Cold War began between two great powers: US and USSR culminating into the Korean War as well as the Vietnam War among others. Even today, war is still prevalent in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries alike. The question that begs answers then is; what sorts of lessons seem to be learned from war and to what extent have these lessons been helpful? It they are learnt at all, do leaders learn the “right” lessons? This essay will argue that important lessons were learnt from WWI, WWII and Vietnam War but leaders seemed not to learn the right lessons. The Great War was fought in July 1914 to November 1918. The most probable cause of the war was the assassination of Ferdinand the crown prince of Austria-Hungary by Serbian Slavs on June 28, 1914 at Sarajevo. If you ask many leaders of the time, they would say the war was inevitable. However, as Stoessinger would put it “it was people who actually precipitated wars” (Xiii). The Austria-Hungary leader Emperor Franz Joseph had a great hatred for Slavs and combined with unrelenting pressure from his chief of staff general Conrad Von Hotzendorff and foreign minister Count Leopold Von Berchtold, he decided to wage war on Serbia. The war was thus not a revenge for the assassination as the Kaiser of Germany Wilhelm II would have expected. The Kaiser gave Joseph his undying support not knowing his real intentions. The support was sacred and irrevocable hence could never be retracted (Nibelungentreue) and Joseph knew this (Stoessinger 7). That is one lesson leaders should have learnt: never to let personal ethics rule over political judgment. If Kaiser had known what his support would result to, he would not have given it in the first place. The effect was that it put him right at crossroads with his cousin Czar Nicholas II of Russia as he entered the war to defend Serbia against unjust aggression by Austria. Czar did not see the reason why Austria would send such a humiliating and provocative ultimatum to Serbia. He saw it as an excuse to wage war on Serbia and he was not mistaken therefore, despite diplomacy from Kaiser nothing could stop his army from mobilizing for an imminent war. Although it was the hatred for Slavs that motivated Joseph, his actions were more the result of pressure from Berchtold and Hotzendorff. Hotzendorff fear of disintegration of the empire and preservation of the nation’s status as a great power drove his policy intents. According to Stoessinger, Serbian policy was “driven by pride and prestige” (8). However, the leaders failed to understand the reality that attack on Serbia meant invasion by Russia or they ignored this fact and acted on fear. A war they thought could last a few weeks and that would be localized turned into a great war. They also failed to take into account the reactions of German Kaiser and his chief of staff general Moltoke who lived under the shadow of his uncle. Moltoke believed in the Schlieffen plan to attack France through Belgium thus violating its neutrality (Stoessinger 17). This led France and Britain to enter the war. Moltoke lack of flexibility led him to defy Kaiser especially on reversing his plan of attacking France. The Russian Czar on the other hand, was under pressure from foreign minister Sergei Sazanov and minister of war Vladimir Sukhomlinov. These two officers went behind the Czar to plan full mobilization of the army to attack Austria and convinced him to accept it once it was already in motion. In addition to pressure from general of staffs, all these nations adopted rigid military schedules and timetables worked out years before the war. According to Stoessinger, the military schedule was “worked out ahead to its final conclusion and in all its detail-once the moment is chosen, everything is settled” (17). This made nations not to turn back from war once they fully engaged as in the case with Germany. The Kaiser wanted the war in Luxembourg halted by Motolke cited the inflexible schedule as the reason why he would not disengage. This would have prevented the Great War from occurring and it might have led to German Defeat of Russia as it would have fought it on one front. The last lesson leant in this war that “once a nation designates another as enemy and does so for long enough, the perception eventually comes to be true” (Stoessinger 25). That is what happened to Sanazov’s despise for Austria. The chiefs of state and generals also failed to see the situation from another point view hence the mistakes that led to destruction of their countries and death of millions of innocent citizens. As if the lessons learned from WWI were not important, chiefs of state repeated the same mistakes in 1939 leading to the Second World War this time pitting Germany, Italy and Japan against Russia, Britain and France. Germany was dissatisfied with the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles which required it to pay reparations and divided Germany into two. Other forces towards war included economic depression of 1930s, ideological conflicts, alliances and arms race. However, the actions chief of states of Germany, Russia and Japan also had impact on war. Just like Franz Joseph of Austria, Adolf Hitler had a hatred for Bolshevism or Slavs, communists, Jews and Russia in general. He thus had a passion to destroy Russia by crushing her government, enslaving its people and eliminate her as a political entity (Stoessinger 32). Hitler never learnt the irrationality in policy making prompted by hatred such as the hatred of Slavs by Joseph of Austria. He thus sought Russia’s help against Poland a Slavic nation in an effort to eliminate all Slavic nations. This made England and France to declare war on Germany. Another lesson not learnt was use of fear in policy making rather than facts. In WWI, Kaiser was afraid of England and France as he viewed them as wanting to destroy Germany. In this case, Hitler viewed British as wanting to prolong the war so that Russia could join in hence destruction of Russia first was his intention. His fear was unfounded as Stalin had no intention of helping Britain but it made him launch operation Barbarosa thus annihilate Russia (36). However, his involvement with small warfare with Greece and Yugoslavia delayed his plan and cost him victory in the Russo-German war. It made him to delay invasion of Russia by four weeks and by the time it invaded Russia, it was winter and this weather was inappropriate for war. He launched the offensive on Russia in June 22, 1941. Joseph Stalin of Russia also was misguided regarding Hitler’s intentions despite having facts on his hands. The alliance between him and Hitler in war against Poland made him to trust Hitler more than capitalists such as Britain and United States as he constructed them as enemies and Germany as a friend. Despite all the facts including Hitler’s plans and exact date of strike, Stalin was not willing to accept this as truth preferring to ignore the information from his enemies and trust in his friend. As such, when Hitler struck on June, Stalin was caught by surprise and was not prepared (Stoessinger 42). Besides, Stalin was a dictator just like Hitler and he had engaged in purges before the war thus weakening his military. At the time of invasion, 75% of his men had served military for less than a year (46). Just like the Wehrmacht feared the Reich, so did the Red army fear Stalin thus they would rather make mistakes that face the wrath of their leaders. Stalin also refused to accept the fact that Hitler had conquered Western Europe in weeks and thought Hitler would give him an ultimatum before invasion and he expected this to take more time. He failed to learn from Serbian experience whereby it was given only 48 hours and this is not enough time to mobilize troops. As such, his people suffered drastically when the war broke out. However, he came out victoriously as he was able to foster a spirit of nationalism among his people. After WWII came the Cold War between communists and capitalists (Russia v US). America believed it was her role to contain communism from spreading especially in Asia hence the war with Korea and 30 years war in Vietnam. Once again, the American presidents failed to learn from history not to be guided by fear and misperceptions but facts leading to the most useless war in history and which made America go full circle from 1954 to 1973. The worst mistake America did was to use its containment policy which had worked in Europe on Asia which was a very different continent from Europe. The presidents also failed to learn from Russian experience in WWII that nationalism is a great weapon; people are willing to die for their country to save it from intruders (Stoessinger 103-131). The presidents also just like other leaders such as Franz Joseph of Austria and Hitler of Germany served personal interests at the expense of national interests thus devising policies unpopular with the public. The presidents included: Harry Truman, Dwight D Eisenhower, John F Kennedy, Lyndon B Johnson, Richard Nixon and Ford. Succeeding presidents took over the mistakes of their predecessors and escalated them leading to mass destruction of people and property using Bombs. All this as a result of a misperception by Truman about the leader of North Vietnam Ho Chi Minh as a communist and as spreading communism in Vietnam. The war thus changed its direction from assisting a colonizer to war against communism. Just like Kaiser and Hitler saw Britain as making a worldwide conspiracy against Germany, so did America view China and Russia (Stoessinger 106). Truman was convinced that China and Russia were using Minh to spread communism in Asia but this was far from the truth as China had no intention of engaging in another war as it had done in Korea. His policy was thus led by fear not facts. France had suffered defeat under Viet Cong even after military and material help from the US. However, Eisenhower did not stop to ask himself why the French were defeated; he underestimated the enemy. Eisenhower was convinced by John Dulles his war adviser that China would intervene in the war. The fear of Chinese intervention led Eisenhower to add more military advisers and financial aid to France in Indochina. However, unlike Kaiser Wilhelm, Franz and Czar Nicholas II he refused to be forced by Admiral Radford to intervene directly in the war. He also made a mistake of forming South East Asia Treaty (SEATO) instead of abiding with the Geneva Accord due to hatred for communism. He did not learn from France defeat hence took the burden of Vietnam by supporting an unpopular candidate Ngo Dinh Diem. The involvement was further deepened by Kennedy when he decided to engage in war directly hoping for a quick victory. He ignored the realities in Asia by using methods that had worked in Europe but Asia was different as Viet Cong were determined to win the revolution. The situation was worsened by Rostow, Taylor, Harkins and McNamara (secretary of defense) who gave misleading reports to Kennedy about the real situation and assured him of victory (Stoessinger 116). Kennedy was assassinated few days after Diem was also assassinated and Johnson took over. Lyndon Johnson was given incorrect information by the war generals to convince him the war was about to be won (Karnow, 339-343). However, the reality was that Viet Cong were proving a force to reckon with as not even bomb raids could stop them. Instead, the more the air raids, the more the Viet Cong escalated their ground maneuvers. Johnson knew he could not win the war but withdrawal was not an option as he wanted to finish what others had started whether it was mistaken or not. General William Westmoreland kept asking for more soldiers but no results. Johnson was brought to reality by the Tet offensive of 1968 which led to death of many American soldiers. Just like Stalin trusted Hitler, so did Americans trust a ceasefire agreement by Hanoi that was breached on Tet holiday. Westmoreland had the facts at hand about the attack but ignored them leading to take over of the U.S embassy for hours. A credibility gap was created thus waning support for Johnson as President. He retired from politics but not before halting bombings and withdrawing the army but the damage had already been done (Karnow 339-343). President Nixon continued with army withdrawals but increased bomb raids. He did not learn from his predecessors that air raids on North Vietnam only resulted in escalation on the ground by Viet Cong otherwise he would not have withdrawn the troops. In the end, America came full circle when a cease-fire similar to Geneva Accord was reached in Paris in 1973. What America had feared most in 1954 happened as South Vietnam became a communist nation. If right lessons had been learned, more that 58,000 American lives, 3 million Vietnamese lives and $150 billion would not have been wasted (Stoessinger 131). Conclusion Many lessons can be learnt from the great wars such as WWI, WWII, and Vietnam War but the most surprising thing it that it seems the “right” lessons are never learned as mistakes of the past keep repeating themselves. The first lesson is never to let personal ethics or interests rule over political interests. Kaiser Wilhelm was led by personal reasons to support Austria and so did Hitler’s hatred for Slavs and Moltoke’s desire to defeat France like his uncle had done before. Second lesson is that designating a country as an enemy turns perceptions to reality and blurs clear judgment. Wilhelm created England as an enemy who was out to finish Germany and this guided his policies. Sazanov also despised Austria thus forced Nicholas II to mobilize against Austria. The hatred of Russia by Hitler also blinded him and so did Stalin’s misperception of Britain as an enemy out to finish Russia. America on the other hand, created North Vietnam as an enemy thus the engagement in Vietnam War. Lesson three is that policy should not be determined by fear but facts. Most chiefs of state in these wars were led to act by fear and ignored the facts or realities on the ground. For example, despite having all the facts from Britain and US, Stalin ignored them leading to surprise attacks by Hitler. Westmoreland also had facts about Tet offensive but ignored them and U.S presidents opted to lie to the public instead of facing the facts and withdraw from the useless Vietnam War. Another lesson is never to underestimate the enemy. Just like Austria thought the war in Serbia would end in days so were Americans convinced Viet Cong would be defeated in days and the more reason for not sending more reinforcements to Vietnam. Besides, nationalism is a better weapon than advanced technology as evidenced in Russia and Vietnam. The leaders should also have learned to look at the situation from another point of view and not be misled their army generals. In this case, America would have noted that North Vietnam was fighting a revolutionary war and not a war of communists against non-communists that is why South Vietnamese were not committed to the war. Furthermore, Asian realities were very different from those of Europe. If these lessons had been learned, many lives would have been saved. Works Cited Karnow, Stanley Vietnam: A History. New York: Penguin, 1991. Stoessinger, John G. Why Nations go to War. 11 ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage, 2010. Read More