In her influential study of World War I, The Guns of August , the historian Ba r bara W. Tuchman writes that in 1910 two very different, yet equally popular, views on the prospect of future wars existed on both sides of the Atlantic. One of these views was represented by a book by Norman Angell entitled The Great Illusion. War, Angell argued, had become an untenable option because of the economic connections among the nations of the global community. Any war would have such devastating consequences that nations could no longer afford to engage in any sort of armed conflict.
In support of this view, a key British military leader, Viscount Esher, co n tended that a combination of factors, including “commercial disaster, financial ruin and individual suffering,” made war in the 20th century “more difficult and improbable” than ever before in the history of civilization.
A contradictory position was represented by a German general named Friedrich von Bernhardi who, in a work entitled Germany and the Next War, argued that war was inevitable. In fact, Bernhardi argued, war was a consequence of “natural law.” Bernhardi insisted that war was a “biological necessity” and actually the human e x pression of “the struggle for existence.” Bernhardi wrote that, among nation-states, “there can be no standing still.” He concluded that any country that fails to move up the evolutionary ladder of development, faces inevitable destruction.

Question

1. Of the two positions, which has been supported by the weight of world history in the 20th century? Explain.
2. Which view continues to be popular in the 21st century? Explain.
3. Which view seems to have been adopted by the international community? Explain.
4. Which view seems to be supported by most Americans? Explain. Which view seems to be in line with American political and military policy in the 21st century? Explain.
5. Which view is morally correct? Explain.