WWI and WWII “taught” opposing “lessons”.
WWI, even to the victors, showed the dangers of excessive preparation for war and alliance commitments. Two alliances, making sure they were ready and not caught unprepared , intolerant of any negative shifts in the balance of power , and unwilling to ask for any concessions diplomatic sacrifices from its own side, ended up in the worst war in a century, about as bad for the victors as the vanquished.
WWII, showed the ultimate victors that insufficient preparation for war, insufficient protection of the balance of power, insufficient solidarity with allies, and excessive appeasement revisionist states, simply allowed the aggressors to get stronger, more confident, doubtful of facing resistance, while weakening their opponents, who ultimately won, but at a much greater cost than they would have with more preparation and solidarity.
The interwar behaviors of the US and the European powers, except Germany, were shaped by “overlearning” the lessons of WWI. When combined with Hitler’s ambitions this led to WWII.
The lessons of WWII led the victorious powers, especially t he superpowers to emphasize the pre-WWI values of keeping peace through preparedness for war, extending alliance commitments, and contesting adversary gains everywhere.
At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis though, JFK, who had been reading “the Guns of August” was fearing the Cold War powers were walking in to a WWIII getting started in a WWI-like manner.
The question is, which of the two ways of war breaking out was more "typical" post-1900. Have more wars post-1900 started because,
a) like before WWI, both sides overprepared their forces and plans and overcommitted to alliances, creating a security spiral of mutual escalation
b) like before WWII, the aggressor thought there would be no opposition, or no effective opposition because potential opposing coalitions showed insufficient will, preparedness and solidarity, leading to deterrence failure against aggression
WWI, even to the victors, showed the dangers of excessive preparation for war and alliance commitments. Two alliances, making sure they were ready and not caught unprepared , intolerant of any negative shifts in the balance of power , and unwilling to ask for any concessions diplomatic sacrifices from its own side, ended up in the worst war in a century, about as bad for the victors as the vanquished.
WWII, showed the ultimate victors that insufficient preparation for war, insufficient protection of the balance of power, insufficient solidarity with allies, and excessive appeasement revisionist states, simply allowed the aggressors to get stronger, more confident, doubtful of facing resistance, while weakening their opponents, who ultimately won, but at a much greater cost than they would have with more preparation and solidarity.
The interwar behaviors of the US and the European powers, except Germany, were shaped by “overlearning” the lessons of WWI. When combined with Hitler’s ambitions this led to WWII.
The lessons of WWII led the victorious powers, especially t he superpowers to emphasize the pre-WWI values of keeping peace through preparedness for war, extending alliance commitments, and contesting adversary gains everywhere.
At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis though, JFK, who had been reading “the Guns of August” was fearing the Cold War powers were walking in to a WWIII getting started in a WWI-like manner.
The question is, which of the two ways of war breaking out was more "typical" post-1900. Have more wars post-1900 started because,
a) like before WWI, both sides overprepared their forces and plans and overcommitted to alliances, creating a security spiral of mutual escalation
b) like before WWII, the aggressor thought there would be no opposition, or no effective opposition because potential opposing coalitions showed insufficient will, preparedness and solidarity, leading to deterrence failure against aggression