A status quo ante can only be achieved early in the war. Best chance is that the christmas truce goes out of hand and reaches the hinterland of all warring parties...
I'm not disputing that this must have been the mindset of the nations' rulers theese days, but I think they were nuts.You misunderstand me. I meant (in response to an earlier message) that both sides would "collapse before they agreed to [a white peace]". The governments involved dared not come back without a victory.
I wouldn't call it unprecedented, the second Punic war saw some loose by nearly standard of the day but refuse to call it quits until it eventually came out on top.I'm not disputing that this must have been the mindset of the nations' rulers theese days, but I think they were nuts.
Can you imagine this scenario:
The nations rulers say: "We all have seen that we've made a terible mistake and so we stop it before even more pepole suffer and die", and the soldiers in the trenches answer: "No, we want to continue starving, wading in the mud getting shot at by machine guns, bombarded by artillery and gassed until someone signs a Karthagenean peace! As for the possibility that this someone might be us, we either are totally convinced that won't happen or willing to take the chance", the relatives of the ones that were killed in action say: "No, we don't want our loved ones to have dies to proof that war is a bad idea in general, we want them to have dies for the concept that war is a good thing so long as we win and we have a good excuse to blame the others!"
It's a nice exercise for acting classes to say this into another persons face without either one laughing, rolling eyes etc. isn't it?
And last but not least: Either way the governments involved were not coming back from anywere since they weren't the ones going anywere. They were the ones sending other people to the battlefield.
Why does noone seriously question that attitude. It is unprecedented in history. Until the 19th century the nations' rulers were more pragmatic, after WWI there was plenty of fanaticism and even worse atrocities, but at least they needed some sort of ideological dispute to become fanatic.
I'm not disputing that this must have been the mindset of the nations' rulers theese days, but I think they were nuts.
Can you imagine this scenario:
The nations rulers say: "We all have seen that we've made a terible mistake and so we stop it before even more pepole suffer and die", and the soldiers in the trenches answer: "No, we want to continue starving, wading in the mud getting shot at by machine guns, bombarded by artillery and gassed until someone signs a Karthagenean peace! As for the possibility that this someone might be us, we either are totally convinced that won't happen or willing to take the chance", the relatives of the ones that were killed in action say: "No, we don't want our loved ones to have dies to proof that war is a bad idea in general, we want them to have dies for the concept that war is a good thing so long as we win and we have a good excuse to blame the others!"
It's a nice exercise for acting classes to say this into another persons face without either one laughing, rolling eyes etc. isn't it?
And last but not least: Either way the governments involved were not coming back from anywere since they weren't the ones going anywere. They were the ones sending other people to the battlefield.
Why does noone seriously question that attitude. It is unprecedented in history. Until the 19th century the nations' rulers were more pragmatic, after WWI there was plenty of fanaticism and even worse atrocities, but at least they needed some sort of ideological dispute to become fanatic.
The difference is: The Romans didn't turn down the offer for status quo ante bellum, they turned down the offer to become a Carthaginian vassal state. When the outcome is all or nothing, it is perfectly reasonable to go for option "all" until the last man, but not when you have another choice.I wouldn't call it unprecedented, the second Punic war saw some loose by nearly standard of the day but refuse to call it quits until it eventually came out on top.
But why cant you just say "We have succeeded in getting the evil out and tought them a lession to never come back"???Some people did question it, even at the time. All it got them was a lot of persecution, not just by their governments but by their neighbours.
Basically it was one of the side-effects of greater democracy. You had to keep the hoi polloi onside, and that could be done only by getting them whipped up into a frenzy of hate, seeing the other side as a bunch of monsters.
Problem was that once you'd instilled this attitude, you couldn't turn it off like a tap. Having convinced the mob that they are in a titanic struggle of good against evil, you can't then turn round and say "It's ok now, we've reached a deal", and have good and evil shake hands on it before they part. You are riding a tiger (of your own making) and have no way to dismount.
But why cant you just say "We have succeeded in getting the evil out and tought them a lession to never come back"???
And history tells that humiliating peace treaties don't change that. Prussia came back after 1806, France came back after 1815 and 1871.Because even illiterate peasants know enough history to realize that "never come back" is one of those phrases that never works out.
But they wouldn't want their suffering to be prolonged for the doubtful perspective to make a lasting change in their favor, would they?They'd want a little more than that for their suffering.