Why war is bad for the middle-class?

Wars impact the lower classes most, benefiting the elite. This video breaks down war as a ‘scam’, using WWI as an example.
While wars are often presented as efforts for the whole country, they usually affect the middle and lower class the most, with most benefits going to those at the top of society. To understand this better, let’s start by defining these terms and examining how this usually happens.War is the government’s final means to achieve its objectives. I will present a simplified breakdown of the steps in the cycle of war, focusing on the perspective that sees this process as a ‘scam’ or manipulation benefiting certain groups at the expense of others. This analysis will use the American participation in the First World War as a primary example. This historical event is sufficiently distant to allow for objective discussion, yet it remains relevant to contemporary issues.

While wars are often presented as efforts for the whole country, they usually affect the middle class the most, with most benefits going to those at the top of society. To understand this better, let’s start by defining these terms and examining how this usually happens.

The word ‘war’ in many languages often means fighting, destruction, or serious conflict. This shows a common understanding of what war involves. Think about this: is there any language where ‘war’ sounds like a good choice for someone acting rationally?

Imagine you have a disagreement with someone. Would setting their house on fire be a good way to make them agree with you? Usually, we strongly disapprove of such actions. Then, why is it seen differently when a government tells you to fight strangers?

Think about the expression ‘Ultima Ratio Regum,’ which means ‘The Last Argument of Kings,’ and was inscribed on the cannons of Louis XIV. Similarly, the phrase ‘L’état, c’est moi’ or ‘I am the state’ is often attributed to him, though its authenticity is uncertain.

To put this in simpler terms, ‘War is the government’s final means to achieve its objectives. How is being forced to join feudal army different from being drafted by a modern government? The 2023 tensions between Venezuela and Guyana, centering around an oil-rich area, exemplify

Typical causes of war. Despite Venezuela’s possession of the world’s largest proven oil reserves, it struggles with a severe economic and social crisis, primarily due to ineffective governance and ongoing political conflicts. Venezuelan leaders are eyeing the oil fields controlled by Guyana, a nation where Spanish isn’t the main language and which, without

Any doubt, hasn’t been under Spanish-speaking rule for over 200 years. The movement of Venezuelan troops near Guyana’s border prompts critical questions. How would a war, inevitably bringing human suffering, aid the Venezuelan people who are already grappling with grave economic and societal issues? Historical evidence suggests that

Acquiring more resources, similar to Venezuela’s current oil reserves, might not benefit its citizens. For Venezuelan soldiers, risking their lives in such a conflict is unlikely to resolve any problems. This scenario underscores the pointlessness and sorrow of conflicts fought for questionable benefits, benefiting a select few while the broader population

Bears significant human costs. Venezuela’s hope for quick victory could lead to an extended conflict, especially if Guyana gains backing from stronger nations interested in its resources. Such situations often transform into prolonged wars of attrition. The one dollar auction allegory serves as a perfect example of this concept. In this

Scenario, each participant increases their bid by 5 cents for a dollar. Over time, the focus of the auction shifts from winning the dollar to minimizing losses. The potential gains won’t outweigh the costs, and inevitably, one bidder will end up with even less. The

Dollar auction allegory for war reflects how parties in conflict irrationally escalate commitments, investing more despite diminishing returns. It symbolizes the persistent, escalating nature of conflict and the challenge of withdrawing after heavy investment. This kind of victory is more about losing less rather than gaining more.

Think of a crowdfunding campaign where a company says it will lose less money than others. This doesn’t sound like a good choice for investing, does it? This is similar to how decisions about war are made. Often, people are not asked for their opinion on war. Like

Businesses, governments can get into debt and shift their losses onto others, hoping to gain more in the future. Have you ever wondered why hyperinflation often occurs after a war, rather than before it? What are the other patterns that typically emerge in such

Scenarios? I invite you to explore these insights with me. If you find this information valuable, please consider hitting the like button and subscribing. I will present a simplified breakdown of the steps in the cycle of war, focusing on the perspective that sees this process as a ‘scam’ or manipulation benefiting certain groups

At the expense of others. The cycle can be outlined in the following stages: Escalation of Conflict: This phase marks the initial build-up of tensions and disputes, leading to the brink of war. Hysterical Support: In this stage, public opinion is swayed to fervently support the war effort, often through propaganda and patriotic

Appeals. Deteriorating Economies: The war’s financial and resource demands strain the economy, leading to a decline in economic stability. Increased Inequality: Economic hardships exacerbate social inequalities, widening the gap between different societal groups. Dissatisfaction: Growing public dissatisfaction emerges from the prolonged effects of war, including economic struggles and loss of life.

Revolution or Forced Peace: Either a revolutionary change occurs, overthrowing the existing system, or external/internal pressures force a peace agreement. Aftermath: This stage involves dealing with the consequences of war, including rebuilding and addressing the grievances of those affected. Restoration: A period of recovery and stabilization, often marked by attempts to return to pre-war conditions.

Amnesia: Over time, the collective memory of the war’s harsh realities fades, potentially setting the stage for future conflicts. This analysis will use the American participation in the First World War as a primary example. This historical event is sufficiently distant to allow for objective discussion, yet it remains relevant to contemporary issues.

Many governments at the time actively sought a pretext for war, driven by political, economic, or territorial motives. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary provided such a pretext, triggering a chain of events that escalated into a global conflict. The objectives of these nations were molded by their unique geopolitical ambitions and

Historical disputes. The general public, influenced by the romanticization of war and effective propaganda, broadly supported the start of the conflict. Many countries experienced a surge of nationalistic fervor and ‘Kriegsbegeisterung’ (war enthusiasm), particularly in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, where citizens eagerly enlisted.

In the United Kingdom nearly 1 million men volunteered by the end of 1914, with a total of about 2.5 million volunteers before 1916.The parts of the British Empire also provided volunteers such as Canada 600,000; Australia had about 417,000 volunteers, New Zealand

Around 124,000, India contributed over 1 million volunteer soldiers. Germany had a conscription system, it is unclear how many volounteered. Around 4.5 million men, including volunteers and conscripts, were called up initially in 1914. The Schlieffen Plan, initially devised by Germany for a swift and decisive victory, ultimately transformed into the prolonged

And grueling trench warfare characteristic of an attrition war. In France about 1 million men were mobilized early in the war. France already had mandatory military service, so it’s hard to distinguish volunteers from conscripts. The U.S. joined the war in 1917 and in one month before conscription, over 73,000 Americans volunteered.

Russia’s involvement in World War I highlights the complex interplay of Slavic nationalisms and imperial ambitions in Eastern Europe. While Russia sought territorial expansion in Central Europe and control over the strategic Dardanelles strait, it also positioned itself as a liberator of Slavic peoples from Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman rule, in line with Pan-Slavism.

This narrative, particularly emphasizing the defense of Serbs, gained strong support in Russia and influenced groups like the Czechoslovak Legion to initially align with Russia, only to later oppose the Bolsheviks in Siberia. However, Russia’s internal situation starkly contrasted with its external ambitions. The Russian population endured oppressive conditions,

Economic hardship, and political repression, which were at odds with the government’s liberation rhetoric. This internal strife culminated in the Russian Revolution, a seismic shift that ended Tsarist rule and established the Soviet Union. Importantly, the notion of Slavic unity under Russian leadership was not universally accepted among Slavic peoples. Many, including

Poles and Ukrainians, aspired to independent nationhood rather than subsumption within a Russian-dominated framework. This desire for autonomy became increasingly apparent as the Russian Empire weakened. During and after the upheavals of World War I and the Russian Revolution, nations like Poland and Ukraine seized the opportunity to establish

Their independence, breaking away from Russian control. This move further illustrated the divergence between Russia’s Pan-Slavic aspirations and the distinct nationalist desires of various Slavic groups. Russia’s involvement in World War I, fueled by nationalism and imperial ambitions, unintentionally paved the way for this dramatic internal upheaval, underscoring

The contrast between its external goals and domestic reality. Many discriminated minorities served into military service during the war. This included colonial troops in British and French forces, and diverse ethnic groups within German, Russian, American and Austro-Hungarian armies. While initially excluded from combat, African

Americans were drafted under the 1917 Selective Service Act. Residents of Southern states did not enjoy equal rights during peacetime until the 1960s due to Jim Crow laws. Even in uniform, African Americans were segregated from white soldiers and often given inferior equipment and training. Most served in non-combat roles, reflecting prevalent racial discrimination.

Among over 350,000 African Americans in the army, only about 50,000 saw combat and 1,300 became officers. The 369th ‘Harlem Hellfighters’ experienced the longest frontline engagement of any U.S. unit in the first world war, with 1,500 casualties out of a few thousand troops.

On arrival to Europe, they were sent to non-combat duties and later moved under the French command. This unique situation arose as the U.S. sought to accommodate its segregationist policies while fulfilling France’s request for troops. This deployment was a response to a political

Request from an ally. Russian units were also sent to the Western Front. This approach also allowed the U.S. to retain majority of white units under their direct command. Despite evident racism and exploitation, the total number of African Americans who became

Officers was about twice that of Poles serving in the German army. Moreover, when considering their respective proportions in the army, African Americans were four times more likely to become officers compared to their Polish counterparts, who were frequently deployed

In the most severe combat roles. During World War I, out of the 780,000 Poles drafted by Germany, only about 700 attained officer positions.Their units, often mockingly called ‘Katschmarkenregimenten,’ faced severe restrictions, such as a prohibition on speaking Polish and the Germanization of

Their surnames. High desertion rates and switching sides were recorded among these Polish soldiers. Among the roughly 80,000 Poles who served in the Polish army based in France, plenty were Poles born abroad, especially in France and the North America but many were ex-members

Of the German army. Ludwik Kazmierczak, also known as Ludwig Kasner, was one of these soldiers. He was the paternal grandfather of Angela Merkel, who was born with the surname Kasner. This situation highlights the irony in the German Empire’s strategy: while it aimed to

Expand its territory eastward, it simultaneously neglected and often mistreated both its ethnic German citizens and various minority groups within its borders. This mindset wasn’t exception but the norm. Over 2.5 million colonial troops from the British Empire, including India, Africa, the West Indies, and other colonies, served in

The British Army during World War I. Notably, about 1.3 million Indian soldiers and laborers were significant contributors, participating in campaigns across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Mahatma Gandhi, initially unknown, supported British war effort in the first world war through Indian recruitment, hoping for political concessions, but later grew

Disillusioned with British response to Indian demands. it’s estimated that around 74,000 Indian soldiers died in the conflict, mainly in Europe. Some of the survivors were slaughtered in the Amritsar massacre in 1919 India where they were protesting preventive indefinite detention, imprisonment without trial, and no judicial review, in response to threats

From revolutionary nationalists. Irishmen also were forced to serve the country from which they wanted to secede and succeeded after the war. These examples highlight how soldiers often fought with little personal benefit. As the conflict dragged on, this seemed increasingly true also for people from nations which were

Ruling the empires. Initial enthusiasm in many countries gave way to the harsh reality of war and growing disillusionment among troops. Furthermore, for some soldiers, the importance of their government winning the war diminished over time. In cases where the government itself was seen as an oppressor, this disenchantment fueled revolutionary sentiments. Their sacrifices

Felt futile, especially as wartime conditions didn’t promise any significant changes. During peacetime, workers, many without voting rights due to lack of wealth, toiled for 10 to 12 hours a day just to survive. The oppressive conditions, both on the frontlines and at

Home, led to a questioning of the very systems and governments they were fighting for. This brewing discontent among the troops, combined with the hardships faced by the civilian population, set the stage for revolutions and significant political upheavals in various countries. Addressing societal problems requires both time and a willingness to collaborate from

Both government and population. Post-revolutionary periods often lack the time for dialogue and can see an increase in oppression. Reflecting on historical examples, it’s evident that revolutions, while aiming to overthrow oppressive systems, often don’t immediately lead to improved conditions, as the chaotic aftermath typically doesn’t allow for the structured problem-solving

Needed for lasting, positive change. Revolutions can be likened to taking a leap in the dark, hoping for the best outcome. A notable example is the French Revolution of 1789. Initially fueled by the desire for liberty, equality, and fraternity, it sought to overthrow an

Oppressive monarchy. However, the revolution quickly spiraled into the Reign of Terror, where extreme measures and widespread violence occurred. In less than two decades, Napoleon abandoned the revolutionary concept of equality and crowned himself Emperor, soon afterwards reestablishing the nobility. This raises a question: for what did the peasants, who ignited

The revolution, truly sacrifice their lives? This illustrates how revolutions, while often begun with hopeful intentions, can lead to unforeseen and sometimes detrimental outcomes. Reflecting on these historical patterns, a recurring theme emerges: the common people often bear the brunt of societal and economic challenges, a trend that continues into our

Present era. Additionally, the weakness of governments, coupled with increased oppression, frequently leads to revolutions. These upheavals, however, often don’t resolve the underlying problems but rather replace one oppressor with another, merely relieving pressure temporarily in times of chaos. Such periods of anarchy are far from ideal; for instance, in extreme

Cases of societal breakdown, the life expectancy can plummet, with a significant portion of adult males dying before the age of 40. This underscores the ineffectiveness of violence and disorder in addressing societal issues. If the dominance of warlords and rampant violence were solutions to societal problems, regions like Somalia, often plagued by such conditions,

Would be among the most developed states. Yet, the reality is starkly different, highlighting the complexity and challenges in creating lasting, positive change in societies. This brings us to the modern context of America, where similar dynamics play out in the economic

Sphere. Just as soldiers and workers in the past fought and labored with little personal gain, today’s economic landscape reveals parallel disparities. The discriminated lacked equal opportunities, seen as nobodies by the government yet expected to die for the country. These

Groups were exploited in wars even more than during peace. Maybe you think, why should you care about the past? My thought is – because it shows the mechanism which still exists. Now, exploitation is tied more to wealth than to skin color or native language. The evolution

Of the middle class in America, a crucial aspect of this discussion, sheds light on the broader implications of these disparities in a contemporary setting. The emphasis here is not on critiquing America. Instead, it’s about the liberty of expression and the ease

Of accessing information in this environment. In capitalism, the ability to generate capital is fundamental. Without it, exploitation can occur without fair compensation, creating an unstable and inequitable economic environment. This situation can become a potential trigger for revolt, especially during moments of government weakness. When people feel unfairly compensated

And oppressed, and if the government is unable to address these grievances or loses its authority, the likelihood of social and political upheaval increases during and after wartime. Capitalism, arguably the most effective economic system available, requires meticulous oversight to ensure its fairness. Observing how wealth is distributed serves as an effective measure

Of its equity. Tracking changes in the overall distribution of wealth is crucial for assessing the health of the economic system. In the 1950s in the USA, it took 2.3 years of labor to save for the cost of an average home. By 2020, that figure ballooned to nearly

Seven years. This is the biggest expense during one’s lifetime, and the system has stolen these extra years from you. In the shifting economic landscape of America, the middle class, once a symbol of financial stability, has undergone a significant transformation. From 1971 to 2021, the proportion of U.S. adults in middle-class households offically

Diminished from 61% to 50%. Simultaneously, the upper-income tier grew from 14% to 21%, while the lower-income tier expanded from 25% to 29%. This change in class composition is further mirrored in the distribution of aggregate household income: the middle class’s

Share dropped from 62% in 1970 to 42% by 2020, whereas the share held by upper-income households climbed from 29% to 50%. The lower-income households, despite an increase in their population, saw a marginal decline in their income share from 10% to 8% over these five decades. Most

People live with little savings, barely managing from one paycheck to the next. Surprisingly, about 70% of Americans have less than $8,000 saved, and 57% have less than $1,000. Amidst this economic backdrop, the staggering wealth of a few stands in stark contrast.

In the U.S., 735 billionaires collectively hold more wealth than the bottom half of all households. Their fortune amounts to $4.5 trillion, overshadowing the $4.1 trillion held by the lower 50% of households. This wealth concentration is further highlighted by the astronomical rise in CEO compensation, which surged by 940% from 1978 to 2018, and

By an even more staggering 1,460% by 2021. Meanwhile, the average worker’s compensation grew by a mere 12% during the same period. The wealth distribution is uneven: in 2016, the bottom 90% of Americans owned only 23% of all wealth, while the richest 1% owned

40%, and the top 0.1% owned 20%. To illustrate the magnitude of this wealth disparity, consider Elon Musk’s fortune of approximately $254 billion. To amass a similar wealth, starting from the American independence in 1776, one would need to save around $2.8 million daily. The problem is not with individuals like Elon

Musk, who might be good and hard-working people. The real issue is with the system that allows a small number of people to become extremely wealthy. The focus should be on the system, not the individuals who succeed in it. This situation raises fundamental questions about

The systemic imbalances that favor immense wealth accumulation for a few, while the majority, especially the middle and working classes, struggle with stagnant incomes and escalating living costs. The stark reality is that many Americans, despite living in a wealthy nation, would face dire consequences if they lost their income for just a month.

The global Gini coefficient, indicating income inequality (0 for equality, 1 for inequality), has decreased from around 70 in 1990 to 62 in 2019, showing progress in reducing global inequality. However, in the USA, the situation is nuanced. While the official Gini index,

Based on pre-tax income, fell in 2022 for the first time since 2007, the post-tax income Gini index actually rose. The current Gini coefficient in the USA is 0.47, up from 0.40 in 1979. This rise, though seemingly small, is significant in comparison to Slovakia’s

Low of 0.23 and South Africa’s high of 0.63. Countries with a net Gini coefficient above 0.4 tend to have increased social unrest. At the current rate of increasing income inequality, the United States may reach a level of inequality similar to that of South Africa in less than

80 years. However, it will be most likely be sooner due to several factors and the war would speed up the process. For example during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, the wealth of Amazon’s CEO, Jeff Bezos, increased significantly from

March to September 2020. His net worth rose to a level where he could have awarded each of Amazon’s 876,000 employees a bonus of $105,000 and still maintained his wealth as it was before the pandemic. Globally billionaires gained $3.9tn, workers lost $3.7tn in 2020.

Imagine what could happen during the third world war with the inequality if COVID-19 had these effects. In times of conflict, societal disparities become evident. The working class, typically from poorer backgrounds, plays a more crucial role in national defense than wealthy individuals. Their significant contributions during war

Underscore a discrepancy in their value and compensation in peacetime. Despite their essential role in crises, they are often overlooked and undercompensated, a stark contrast to the immense wealth of a few billionaires. This raises questions about societal values in the U.S., where wealth and property are highly esteemed, yet the wealth of those who

Protect the nation is disproportionately small compared to the fortunes of the wealthy few. Furthermore, when considering wealth and its societal impact, it’s clear that one billionaire’s contribution is not as significant as that of hundreds of thousands of regular people, even if their combined wealth is equivalent. The current system frequently places poorer

Individuals in situations of war where they stand to gain little. This reality is a difficult but important acknowledgment for most, who find themselves part of this less affluent group. These observations call for a reevaluation of societal rewards, advocating for fair compensation

And recognition of those who contribute significantly, especially in times of national emergencies. Most of us, often considered middle class, are closer to what is traditionally seen as low-income. This reality, though hard to accept, shows a deeper economic issue. The idea of

A financially secure middle class does not match many people’s current economic struggles. Living paycheck to paycheck, saving little, and facing rising costs are typical of lower-income experiences. Acknowledging this shift in economic status is crucial for understanding society’s actual economic health. The issue of rising inequality is critical, like a bomb ready

To explode in a major conflict. If this disparity isn’t addressed, it could lead to significant social and political turmoil. It’s crucial to find peaceful solutions, whether in the next ten years or a century. Until this problem is resolved, it will continue to influence

Our perception and narrative of reality. Governments depend on public support, and when they lack genuine merit, they often resort to peacetime public relations and wartime propaganda. War Initiation. The onset of the first world war necessitated significant funding for military expenses, including equipment, logistics,

And personnel. The Nye Committee’s investigation in the 1930s underscored the financial aspects of war particularly the substantial profits of arms manufacturers, suggesting these gains significantly swayed American national policies regarding the war. The mix of financial interests, government actions, and public support—shaped largely by propaganda—were key factors in

Starting the war. Effective propaganda cast the Central Powers, especially Germany, as the main villains, a portrayal vital for garnering public backing against a perceived major threat. In the United States, the government managed public knowledge by censoring the press and spreading government-crafted propaganda, thus molding public views on the war.

Edward Bernays, often referred to as the ‘father of public relations’ and a nephew of Sigmund Freud, played a pivotal role in the first world war propaganda efforts in the U.S. He was part of the Committee on Public Information (CPI), where he utilized his psychological

Expertise to devise effective propaganda in support of the war. This period marked the start of his distinguished career in public relations, where he continued to employ psychological methods to sway public opinion. The CPI, supervised by George Creel, engaged 75,000 volunteers

Who gave over 7.5 million speeches across the country, focusing on themes such as Liberty Bonds, the draft, and rationing to bolster morale and war support. Additionally, the CPI employed various forms of media, including newspapers, posters, radio, telegraph, and films, to extensively spread their messages, all aimed at shaping public opinion and morale

In line with the government’s war aims. The ‘Four Minute Men’ volunteers were integral to these campaigns, especially in promoting the draft in May 1917, prior to the national registration in June. Post-war, Creel explained, ‘We did not call it propaganda, for that word,

In German hands, had come to be associated with deceit and corruption. Our effort was educational and informative throughout, for we had such confidence in our case as to feel that no other argument was needed than the simple, straightforward presentation of the

Facts.’ Here are images showcasing the ‘facts’ as they were portrayed, offering a glimpse into the reality they depicted. Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, in his 2010 book ‘Death of the Liberal Class,’ criticizes the CPI, labeling its work as ‘a relentless campaign of manipulation of public opinion thinly disguised as journalism,’ and cites

Examples of fabricated German atrocities. Addressing anti-war sentiment, the U.S. implemented legal measures like the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act. In response to anti-war sentiment, the U.S. adopted legal measures such as the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act. The Espionage Act of 1917, which has not been fully revoked and remains active,

Albeit with several amendments, was originally enacted to prohibit interference with military operations and to prevent support for U.S. enemies during wartime. The Sedition Act of 1918, an expansion of the Espionage Act, broadened its reach to cover a range of offenses including

Speech and expression of opinions critical of the government or its war efforts. Aimed at quelling dissent and criticism of war policies, the Sedition Act was repealed in 1920, but some of its provisions reappeared in later laws. The Smith Act (1940) outlawed advocating

For the government’s violent overthrow, targeting radical groups during the second world war and the early Cold War. The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 initiated the U.S.’s first peacetime draft for men aged 21 to 35. In 1942, Executive Order 9066, signed by President

Roosevelt, led to the internment of Americans of Japanese descent and Japanese aliens. The War Powers Act of 1941 granted the government extensive control over resources for the war effort. The Office of Censorship, formed in December 1941, oversaw wartime media and communication.

The United States entered the second world war in December 1941, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. This approach to curbing dissent was underscored by the case of Eddie Slovik, the sole American soldier to be executed for desertion since the Civil War. His execution

On January 31, 1945, came after he admitted to desertion and refused to return to combat, citing fear and unwillingness. Slovik was one of 141 servicemen executed during the war from among 16 million members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Similar propaganda efforts were undertaken by countries around the world during the war.

Each nation employed its own strategies to mobilize support and shape public perception. The example of the United States and the CPI is highlighted here due to the well-documented and accessible nature of their propaganda campaigns. Widespread support for World War I did not preclude opposition, as many pacifists and

Intellectuals fervently challenged the war on moral grounds. These dissenters faced suppression through various means, including legal actions such as censorship and imprisonment, and more sinister methods like enforced disappearances and assassinations. This silencing of opposition highlighted the extreme lengths governments and factions would go to maintain a unified

Front during the conflict. Jean Jaurès, a prominent French socialist and pacifist, co-founded the French Socialist Party and was an advocate for workers’ rights and international socialism. His attempts to unify French and German workers and oppose nationalist sentiments were tragically

Halted by his assassination on July 31, 1914, by Raoul Villain, a French nationalist. This event significantly affected Europe’s peace movement. The assassination was partly due to French resentment over the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine by Germany after the Franco-Prussian

War. During World War I, Villain was imprisoned, but he was surprisingly acquitted in 1919, reflecting the complex political and emotional atmosphere of the time. Adding to the tragedy of Jaurès’s life, his only son died in 1918 at the age of 20, while fighting on the frontline.

In a separate but related context of military discipline in France, the “Mutzig affair” in 1916, where soldiers at the Fort de Mutzig mutinied over poor conditions and war exhaustion, resulted in severe repercussions. The French military responded harshly, swiftly court-martialing and executing several leaders of the mutiny. Particularly in Russia and Germany, pacifists

Who vocally opposed the war faced severe risks, including death under both the Tsarist regime and later the Bolsheviks in Russia. During this turbulent period, Adolf Hitler served in the German Army on the Western Front, participating in major battles. After being wounded and

Temporarily blinded in 1918, he was reassigned to military intelligence to monitor the spread of Bolshevik ideas among German troops, significantly shaping his post-war political views and leading to his involvement with the German Workers’ Party. Several years later Erich Maria Remarque’s

“All Quiet on the Western Front” provided a stark look into life in the German trenches. Despite its success, the book’s anti-war stance led to its banning and burning in Nazi Germany. During World War I in Britain, the White Feather campaign, inspired by a 1902 novel, was a

Method of public shaming to encourage recruitment. In 1914 and 1915, groups of women in English cities distributed white feathers, a symbol of cowardice, to men in civilian attire. The campaign became so widespread that veterans, returning with wounds or sickness and discharged

Honorably, were forced to wear the Silver War Badge from September 1916. This badge was to shield them from shame. Ernest Atkins, a frontline soldier, was once given a white feather, to which he responded that he would take it back to his comrades in Passchendaele,

Noting that he was out of uniform only to avoid the perception of lice. Emmeline Pankhurst, a prominent suffragette and war supporter, endorsed the practice of giving white feathers to non-uniformed men to coerce them into enlistment. Contrarily, her daughters Sylvia and Adela, who were committed pacifists, strongly disagreed with her, leading

To a family split. Interestingly, many men pressured into military service by such tactics did not have voting rights, much like Pankhurst herself, as only property-owning men were eligible to vote at that time. These examples illustrate how war mobilizes society through various means, including public shaming, legal restrictions, and ideological

Debates. While this overview isn’t exhaustive, it offers insight into the societal and ethical complexities associated with military conflicts. Increased Government Spending. To finance the war, the government significantly increases its spending. This often includes contracts with private companies for supplies and armaments, leading to substantial profits for these companies. The “military-industrial complex” concept,

Often associated with the Cold War, originated at least during World War I. This war led to a significant increase in weapons, ammunition, and machinery production, necessitating a shift to government-controlled industrial production. The U.S. War Industries Board is an example of this change. The economic benefits of war production created a moral

Dilemma, as the profitability of war could incentivize ongoing conflict. Smedley Butler in his book “War is the Racket” was operating with an inflation-adjusted value of USD. This is why he mentions 52 billion USD in 1935, while the cost in 1918 was 32

Billion. According to him, 30% of it was a profit. In 2023 it would be, by inflation-adjusted, $713 billion, which does not show the real picture. Too many years have passed, too many changes in demographics. The American budget was in 2023 $6 trillion. However, the reality

Is that in 1913, the United States federal budget had receipts of approximately $714 million and outlays of about $715 million. This relatively modest budget contrasted sharply with the massive expenditure of around $32 billion by the U.S. during the first world

War, just a few years later. The war effort required significantly higher spending than the normal operations of the government at that time, leading to a substantial increase in expenditures. The US government spent in a few years more on a war than in a few decades

On its citizens. I will show you an example of an alternative cost. The Hoover Dam was considered an expensive and ambitious project for its time, constructed during the Great Depression. The project was one of the largest of its kind and required substantial resources,

Both in terms of funding and labor. The construction involved thousands of workers and advanced engineering techniques, contributing to its high cost. Yet, the electric energy produced paid it back 40 years later. In 1918, with a budget of $32 billion, approximately 1,112

Hoover Dams could have been built. Alternatively, each American family not owning a home could have had one paid for by the government. We are talking about these kinds of expenses. Instead the government went on a war. During this time, some companies saw extraordinary

Profits, far exceeding the usual 6% to 12% margin. Profits soared to 200%, 1,600%, and even 7,856% for some coal producers. The DuPont family is a prime example. Their annual income jumped from about $6 million before the war to $58 million during it, an increase of over

950%. Similar surges in profits were seen in the steel and copper industries. Borrowing and Debt. The government may borrow money to cover these costs, increasing national debt. This borrowing can be from internal sources (like bonds sold to citizens) or external sources (like loans from other countries or international organizations). The financial

Sector’s role in the first world war, marked by significant and often undisclosed profits gained by bankers who financed the war, raises complex ethical issues. The committee reported that between 1915 and January 1917, the United States lent Germany $27 million. In the same

Period, it lent to Britain and its allies $2.3 billion. These loans were made during wartime: July 28, 1914 – November 11, 1918. They wouldn’t be paid if Britain would lose. This situation highlights a concerning aspect of war, where financial institutions potentially

Benefit from conflict, creating a moral dilemma about profit-making in times of human suffering. Furthermore, the lack of transparency in these profits and the limited public scrutiny at the time underscore the need for greater accountability and ethical considerations in the relationship

Between finance and warfare. To manage the growing debt and continue funding the war, the government may start printing more money. Provided that the currency is not based on the gold standard. This increase in money supply, without a corresponding increase in

Goods and services, starts to devalue the currency. In a gold standard system, the amount of currency a country can issue is limited by its gold reserves. As gold is finite, this system naturally restricts the money supply. However, when a country shifts from the gold

Standard to a fiat currency system, the constraints are removed. In a fiat system, the currency’s value is based on government backing rather than a physical commodity. This change gives governments and central banks the ability to issue more currency as they need. If a

Government has debt (like war expenses) denominated in its own currency, the real value of this debt diminishes. Essentially, the government can pay back its debts with money that’s worth far less than when it was borrowed. Hyperinflation is a severe economic condition that occurs

When excessive money printing leads to a rapid decline in the currency’s value. The cost of goods and services increases dramatically, and the purchasing power of the currency plummets. This situation can be particularly devastating for those who hold most of their wealth in

Cash, typically the poor and middle class, as their savings and income rapidly lose value. Conversely, the wealthy, who often diversify their assets into real estate, stocks, or foreign currencies, may find their wealth somewhat protected or even increased in relative terms. In extreme cases, hyperinflation can erode the wealth of entire populations, except

For those who have safeguarded their assets in more stable forms of value or have stable high income. During the first world war, countries such as Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, England, and the United States were confronted with the challenge of financing a costly war.

To manage rising debts and sustain war expenses, these nations resorted to printing more money. This strategy, while addressing immediate financial needs, had wider economic consequences, particularly impacting average workers. These countries in majority chose to abandon the gold standard, which had significant effects on their economies, especially affecting poorer

Communities. Abandoning the gold standard and increasing the money supply led to inflation. This inflation is often seen as a “tax on the poor” because it affects those with lower incomes more severely. The poor spend a larger share of their income on essentials, and as

Inflation raises prices, their purchasing power decreases. In contrast, the wealthy, who may have appreciating assets or incomes that keep pace with inflation, face less impact. This disparity makes inflation a regressive economic issue, disproportionately burdening the less wealthy. Before the war, Germany was a leading economic force in Europe, significantly

Influencing the industrial landscape. By 1914, it produced two-thirds of Europe’s steel, half of its coal and lignite, and more electricity than the United Kingdom, France, and Italy combined. With a population of nearly 67 million, Germany had more human resources than most European countries, except Russia. Germany was also a leader in emerging industries

Like chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and electricity, and made notable advances in agriculture. This included the use of artificial fertilizers and modern farm machinery, making its agricultural sector highly efficient, especially in producing one-third of the world’s potatoes.The standard of living for Germans was improving significantly. Prominent German companies such as Krupps,

Thyssen, Siemens, AEG, Hoechst, and BASF were known for their high-quality products and were respected globally.Before World War I, Germany was extremely affluent and industrially advanced, with significant influence beyond its borders. However, this prosperity was not evenly spread across its society, which had underlying tensions and uncertainties.The

Abandonment of the gold standard in 1914 led to the devaluation of currency and rampant inflation. Initially, this was an effort to fund the war without imposing direct taxes, but it spiraled into hyperinflation, especially after the Treaty of Versailles imposed severe reparations. For the average German worker, this meant their savings and wages rapidly

Lost value, eroding their purchasing power and leading to widespread economic hardship. Although many believe that hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic resulted directly from the government printing money to pay war reparations, the roots of country’s painful inflation situation developed years earlier. In 1914, Germany stopped backing their currency with

Gold. By 1919, prices had doubled after Germany spent on war around 45 billion usd. The Treaty of Versailles’ war reparations, demanding payment in gold or foreign currency, prevented Germany from further inflating away its debts. The initial demand was for about 33 billion

USD at the time, a figure that was later reduced and modified. This period marked a dramatic shift for Germany, from a leading European economic power to a country struggling with economic and social challenges. The German economy shrank 27% between 1914 and 1918.

The Mark, once a symbol of Germany’s wealth, became greatly devalued. Chancellor Otto von Bismarck’s social insurance program, established in Germany in 1889, was a pioneering initiative that laid the groundwork for the modern welfare state. Initiated as a response to the socio-economic challenges of the Industrial Revolution and to counter socialist and workers’ movements,

It represented a significant shift in state responsibility towards its citizens. Key components of Bismarck’s program included health insurance (1883), which offered medical and financial benefits during illness; accident insurance (1884), covering work-related injuries; and disability and old-age insurance (1889), supporting those who were permanently disabled or elderly.

The program was funded through contributions from employers, employees, and the government. The cost of this comprehensive social insurance system was 40 million usd in value from 1914, a substantial sum at the time but nothing compared to a cost of war.

Russia’s departure from the gold standard in 1914, to increase money printing for war funding, severely strained its economy, already suffering from inflation. Despite financial aid from allies, the underdeveloped economy worsened during World War I. By late 1915, the large, ill-equipped army faced a dire shortage of artillery shells, leading to heavy

Casualties. Soldiers, often unarmed and instructed to find weapons on the battlefield, lacked helmets until 1916, likely due to logistical issues, a deficiency later exploited in 1917 civil war propaganda. Rising food prices and fuel shortages in 1915 sparked strikes and

Violent riots, fueling opposition to the czarist regime. This unrest was amplified in the rural areas, especially among peasant recruits who feared being used as cannon fodder. Political mobilization was evident in the War Industries Committee, where workers sought reform.

The growing conflict between the Tsar and the Duma in early 1917 led to a loss of support for the regime. This period was marked by severe food and fuel shortages due to failing rail transport, sparking riots and strikes across the nation. Such unrest was in sharp

Contrast to the events of 1905, when the military’s intervention suppressed protests, preserving the monarchy. The 1905 Russian Revolution began with the Bloody Sunday protest on January 22. Organized by Father Gapon, workers marched to the Winter Palace, seeking to present Tsar

Nicholas II with a petition for better working conditions, personal freedoms, and a constitutional government. The protest took a tragic turn when Imperial soldiers fired on the demonstrators, transforming a peaceful march into a calamity that fueled widespread anger and catalyzed the revolution. In a significant reversal of roles, the troops, who had previously defended

The monarchy in 1905, sided with the protestors in 1917, leading to the fall of the Romanov dynasty after three centuries of rule. Approximately $22 billion was allocated for the war, a significant sum in a country already on the edge of revolution due to social inequality

And poverty. The government, focused on war financing, neglected domestic crises. The lack of investment in social programs, economic reforms, and public welfare, amidst rampant inflation and resource shortages, worsened public discontent. This neglect demonstrated a government more inclined to spend on warfare than on its people’s needs. Public sentiment

Evolved from begging to demanding, and eventually to an outright rejection of dialogue in favor of violence. This trajectory could have been altered by avoiding war and redirecting funds to reforms. Consequently, Russia descended into bloodshed. The government’s failure to prioritize peace and stability, coupled with its focus on war expenditure, was instrumental

In the collapse of the czarist regime and the subsequent civil war. This period of significant violence and upheaval reshaped Russia’s political landscape, marking the end of an era. The revolution, while altering the power structure, ultimately failed to address the underlying

Issues. It merely replaced one set of oppressors with another, leaving those who were oppressed in much the same position as before. The Austro-Hungarian Empire abandoned the gold standard at the outset of World War I in 1914. This decision was part of their effort

To finance the war, but it led to significant inflation. The empire’s already fragile economy was further weakened by this inflation, contributing to its eventual collapse and dissolution at the end of the war. The average worker in the empire faced a rapid decline in the value

Of their earnings, exacerbating the socio-economic disparities across its diverse regions. The United Kingdom suspended the gold standard in 1914 at the start of World War I and reinstated it in 1925. In 1913, the UK’s government budget of £198 million was equivalent to about $962

Million in U.S. dollars of the time. This figure primarily represents the UK’s national budget and not the entire British Empire, as colonies and dominions managed their own separate budgets. During the war, Britain and its Empire expended $47 billion. World War I marked the beginning of the end for the British Empire.

France suspended the gold standard to increase money supply for funding the war effort. France suspended the gold standard in 1914, at the outbreak of the war and returned for a few years in 1928. In 1913, the budget of France was equivalent to around 984 million USD.

France spend around $24 billion on war. The United States did not abandon the gold standard during World War I. Instead, it managed to finance its war efforts through a combination of taxes, bonds, and an increase in the money supply while maintaining the gold standard.

During the Great Depression under President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, the U.S. finally abandoned the gold standard. The Nazi Party, led by Adolf Hitler, officially came to power in Germany on January 30, 1933. In this same period, existed so called Wall

Street Putsch or Business Plot which involved prominent businessmen and financiers in the United States who were supposedly planning to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt and install a fascist dictatorship. The veracity and extent of this plot have been the subject of debate among historians, but it remains a notable and often discussed incident in

American history. In 1934, Smedley Butler, a retired Major General from the Marine Corps, gave testimony before the McCormack–Dickstein Congressional committee. He claimed that a group of wealthy businessmen had plotted a fascist coup to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The plan, according to Butler, was to leverage his leadership

Within a veterans’ organization to facilitate this coup. Butler, even in his retirement, was esteemed as one of the most respected generals among soldiers, reflecting his enduring military prestige. Notably, he had publicly supported the Bonus March by veterans in 1932, which was met with a government response involving the army. Although no prosecutions resulted

From these allegations, the committee acknowledged that these coup plans were seriously contemplated and could have been implemented. Initially, major media outlets like the New York Times dismissed Butler’s claims as a hoax, but later acknowledged the committee’s findings as alarmingly true. While historians debate the plot’s proximity to actual implementation,

There’s a consensus that some form of drastic scheme was indeed contemplated.During the hearings, Butler testified about proposition to lead 500,000 men in a march on Washington, alleging the coup would use Roosevelt’s ill health as a pretext. Despite Butler’s previous

Support for Roosevelt and criticism of capitalism, he claimed the plotters saw him as a popular, manipulable figure. The plan, according to Butler, was for him to assume significant power as “Secretary of General Affairs,” reducing Roosevelt to a figurehead. while Smedley Butler accused several individuals, including Gerald C. MacGuire, of involvement, all denied these

Allegations. MacGuire was notably the only person identified by Butler who testified before the committee, which did not follow up on other names Butler mentioned, like certain bankers and an heir to the Singer Corporation. President Franklin D. Roosevelt reportedly intervened to suppress some of the most damning testimony to avoid further division in the

Nation. MacGuire passed away in 1935 at 37 years old due to pneumonia, the issue gradually receded from public attention. Concerns about the gold standard’s abandonment under Roosevelt, perceived as threatening private wealth, were also noted. Jules Archer suggested this financial alarm contributed to the coup plot, framing Roosevelt as a socialist undermining the economy.

In 1935 was released a footage of Smedley Butler describing his 1934 congressional committee testimony and views towards the alleged 1933 plot. In a same year he released his book, War Is a Racket where he stated “All over, nations are camping on their arms. The mad

Dogs of Europe are on the loose.” He gave a speech in Congress which resonated strongly with veterans. The american Adjusted Compensation Payment Act for veterans was passed on January 27, 1936. On March 7, 1936, Adolf Hitler defied the Treaty of Versailles and Locarno Treaties by ordering the remilitarization of the Rhineland,

A bold foreign policy move met with no action from Britain and France. Then, in September 1936, he announced the Four-Year Plan at the Nuremberg Rally, led by Hermann Göring, to rapidly rearm Germany and boost economic self-sufficiency, focusing on increasing military production

And reducing import dependence. France and Italy both abandoned the gold standard on the same day, October 27, 1936. Would you agree with my perspective that these countries were already gearing up to repeat historical patterns and aimed to discard the gold standard in anticipation of another war? The repercussions don’t terminate when hostilities

Cease and what happened between wars is a great example of this. The aftermath often precipitates economic downturns and engenders political volatility, creating conditions ripe for further hostilities and suffering. Once World War I ended, the global economy and geopolitical landscape underwent dramatic changes. High debt, devalued currencies, and

Significant social and economic disparities characterized many nations. This period catalyzed major geopolitical shifts, including revolutions and the redrawing of national borders. In the aftermath of World War I, the international landscape underwent dramatic changes. Sailors at the German High Seas Fleet, refusing to embark on a suicidal mission, initiated a

Mutiny that quickly spread to workers and civilians. This mutiny spiraled into a full-scale revolution, forcing the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II and the proclamation of the Weimar Republic. The economic and political turmoil ensued for years, contributing to the rise

Of the Nazi regime. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia led to the formation of the Soviet Union and the independence of several nations from the Russian Empire. The collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire gave birth to new nation-states in Central Europe, while Ireland’s

Quest for independence culminated in the Irish War of Independence. Additionally, there were significant territorial changes and border conflicts, exemplified by Poland’s secession from Germany and wars in balkans and the former Ottoman Empire. This era was also marked by numerous conflicts on the Eastern front, especially in the former Russian Empire. A crucial moment

Was the Battle of Warsaw in 1920, where Polish forces stopped the Soviet advance, likely preventing their support for German communists. Concurrently, the German Revolution of 1918-1919 brought about significant upheaval, with socialist uprisings occurring between 1919 and 1921. The Soviet Union seemed more intent on installing a puppet government in Germany rather than

Acquiring breakaway territories, influencing Western nations to implement reforms to dampen revolutionary fervor, such as Britain’s Representation of the People Act 1918 and France’s 1919 legislation to shorten the workday. These events underscored the complexity of the post-war geopolitical environment, as nations navigated the challenges of newfound independence, shifting alliances,

And the emergence of new political forces in the wake of World War I’s profound global impact. In the United States, the aftermath of the first world war presented unique challenges, especially for returning veterans. The transition from a wartime economy to a peacetime one

Led to a scarcity of jobs, significantly impacting veterans. This situation worsened during the Great Depression, as economic difficulties intensified, leaving many veterans with inadequate support and benefits. Major General Smedley Butler, a notable Marine Corps officer, vocally supported these veterans. He criticized their treatment and highlighted

The broader issue of war profiteering. The 1932 Bonus Army March, a crucial event, underscored the veterans’ distress. Thousands, burdened by the Great Depression’s financial strain, marched in Washington, D.C., demanding early payment of a promised war service bonus, initially scheduled for 1945. Approximately 4.7 million U.S. soldiers was

Moblized during the war, many facing financial challenges post-war. To address this, the U.S. government enacted the World War Adjusted Compensation Act in 1924. This period was marked by global upheaval, including the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and veteran faction street

Fights in Germany. The Act granted veterans a bonus calculated at $1.25 per day for overseas service and $1.00 per day for domestic service, subject to a limit. The average bonus was about 500 dollars, a figure that equates to roughly $6.5 thousand in 2023 when adjusted

For inflation. For comparison in 1917, a construction worker in New York City could earn $4 to $6 daily, while rural wages in the U.S. were typically 2 to 3 dollars per day. This contrast highlights the economic disparity veterans faced, as

Even the least lucrative civilian jobs often paid more than military service. The bonus was supplementary to their military pay, which for a basic infantry soldier serving in Europe was about $30 per month, or roughly $1 per day. Including bonus, their salary for serving

On the frontline was lower than staying civilian and working in the worst jobs. During war, around 116,000 U.S. soldiers lost their lives and approximately 204,000 were wounded in action. The plight of these veterans was set against a backdrop of intense debate

And scrutiny during the 1920s and 1930s. Numerous books and articles analyzed the high cost of war, with some arguing that financiers and arms manufacturers influenced the U.S. to enter the first world war. The government’s response to the Bonus Army, led by General Douglas MacArthur, was negative, leading to the forceful eviction of veterans.

During the Bonus March, two veterans were killed in the confrontation with the U.S. Army as it moved to disperse the protesters. This event highlighted the post-war neglect of veterans, economic disparities, and shaped public views of war, the military, and the government. The Nye committee started in 1934 to investigate

The financial and banking interests that underlay the United States’ involvement in war and the operations and profits of the industrial and commercial firms supplying munitions to the Allies and to the United States. In response to public demand and concerns over potential unrest, Congress, in January 27, 1936, passed the Adjusted Compensation

Payment Act, overruling President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s veto. This legislation facilitated the immediate payment of the pending bonus, offering crucial financial support to the veterans amid the Great Depression, essentially 10 years post-service instead of the originally planned 20 years. The Nye Committee was officially disbanded

On February 24, 1936, following a controversial incident involving its Chairman, Senator Gerald Nye. Nye, in a speech whose exact date wasn’t recorded, launched an attack on the late Democratic President Woodrow Wilson. He accused Wilson of withholding crucial information from Congress

During the deliberation over the declaration of war. This accusation stirred a strong response from Democratic leaders, including Appropriations Committee Chairman Carter Glass of Virginia. Glass, in a dramatic display of opposition, fiercely defended Wilson in a packed Senate Chamber. Amidst cheers from his colleagues, he forcefully slammed his fist onto his desk

Until blood dripped from his knuckles, symbolizing his vehement rejection of Nye’s accusations and marking a turning point that led to the committee’s dissolution. The Nye Committee investigated the financial aspects of the first world war, with a focus on profits made

By arms manufacturers. The Nye Committee held 93 hearings, questioning more than 200 witnesses, including J. P. Morgan, Jr., and Pierre du Pont. They revealed the enormous profits made from war, which could sway national policies. Surprisingly, there were no legal consequences for those involved, highlighting the close connection between commercial interests and

National policy, a key topic in discussions about the military-industrial complex’s influence. The war is viewed by some as a “scam” because it effectively transfers wealth from the general population, who suffer from the devaluation of currency, to those who profit from the

War (like arms manufacturers) and those who hold tangible assets. The poor and middle class bear the brunt of the economic fallout, while a small segment may emerge significantly wealthier. In its final report, the Nye Committee also identified the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay as a key example of complicity between

Debt financiers, arms makers, and militaries. The Committee described the dynamic:”When a limited amount of materiel, such as machine guns, was available, Bolivia could be forced into ordering them on the threat that unless she acted quickly, Paraguay would get them. Killing the back-country Indians of South America with airplanes, bombs, and machine

Guns, boiled down to an order to get busy because “these opera bouffe revolutions are usually short-lived, and we must make the most of the opportunity.” Many remember President Kennedy’s famous statement: ‘Don’t ask what your country can do for you,

Ask what you can do for your country.’ However, it’s important to reconsider this notion. In ancient Greece, when citizens disagreed with state policies, they engaged in ‘stasis,’ a form of civil strife that sometimes included refusing to pay taxes. Reflect on how many

People today truly believe their government is performing well and justifies the taxes they pay. You contribute by paying taxes and abiding by the laws set by your government. It’s important to consider the real impact your government has on your life, including

Aspects like the freedom to opt out of military service during times of war. I’m not telling you what to do, but like a friend I encourage you to think about this. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the world benefits most from you being

Your best self. That best version of you shouldn’t be lost in a modern or future reenactment of conflicts like Verdun. Consider this: during the 10-month Battle of Verdun, total casualties, including those who died, exceeded 700,000 from all sides. The first World war, was among the deadliest conflicts in history with approximately 40

Million casualties, including 9.7 to 10 million military fatalities. The subsequent events, like for example the Civil War following the 1917 October Revolution, resulted in an estimated 8 to 10 million deaths. How many of those people would have chosen to stay alive rather than die for their government? These statistics underscore the vast human

Toll and the deep tragedy of the war, a scale so immense it challenges comprehension. Reflecting on this, Joseph Stalin, a leader whose policies resulted in the pointless deaths of millions, once remarked, “A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”

To grasp the loss’s extent, consider the potential contributions of individuals who, though unknown during their military service, could have greatly impacted humanity. These individuals, later influential in various areas, exemplify the achievements lost to those who did not survive, demonstrating the profound impact each person can have. Consider the lost contributions

To science, arts, or the economy. For instance, numerous key figures in these fields had frontline war experiences. The Nobel laureates are highlighted, I excluded later commanders or politicians. Walt Disney, J.R.R. Tolkien, Ernest Hemingway, Erich Maria Remarque, Erwin Schrödinger,

Richard von Mises, Conrad Hilton, Ray Kroc. Do you know of any other individuals who served on the frontline during World War I and later became famous? What of those who survived but were mentally scarred? Their post-war struggles often worsened

The world. A prime example is Adolf Hitler, who, after a gas attack in 1918, was diagnosed with what was then called hysteria, now known as PTSD. Some believe he never fully recovered, and without the first world war, his movement might have lacked support from similarly affected

Veterans. Many of these veterans, traumatized and disillusioned, returned to an unrecognizable world that seemed indifferent to their suffering. This widespread disenchantment, amidst economic turmoil and social unrest, created a ripe environment for extremist ideologies. Have you thought about the demographic impact on Europe if the first world war had not happened?

The difference could be in the hundreds of millions. Imagine how many of these unborn individuals might have propelled society further forward than where we are now. Consider those born into poverty and fatherlessness due to the war; instead of potentially ending up

In prison, they might have been contributing members of society. Sometimes, the significance lies not just in personal achievements but in how one influences the lives of others. Mariano Filipepi was a tanner in Florence and the father of Sandro Botticelli. While not much is known about Mariano’s life or achievements independently, he is remembered

Because his son, Botticelli, went on to become one of the most prominent artists of his time. Botticelli is renowned for works like “The Birth of Venus” and “Primavera,” which are celebrated for their beauty and have had a lasting impact on the art world. On the left

Is how the art looked like when he was born, and on the right his work. The movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” also beautifully illustrates how life can positively affected many others. Millions who died in pointless wars had their possibilities brutally trampled, without any

Consideration for their personal goals and dreams. Don’t become one of them. If war is what you desire, at least be aware of what you truly sacrifice. Please feel free to share your experiences and thoughts in the comments. However, do

So only if it’s safe for you. In the perspective of many governments, refusing to fight during a war is seen as a significant crime, and currently, the world is rife with conflicts. Your safety and well-being should always come first. I urge you to share this message with

Any friend who is considering joining the army. Even if they don’t agree, perhaps it will help them understand perspectives like mine. “War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today.” These words were also spoken by John F. Kennedy.