WWI and New Departures

The two 20^th-century world wars had significant ramifications that are still felt today. Above all, the Great War marked new departures in the 20^th century in various ways. For instance, it marked new departures through the political changes it caused at the time. Historically, the aftermath of the war saw numerous political changes. These changes included the downfall of some empires like the Ottoman and Austria-Hungary. With their downfall, other new nations emerged across Europe, like Finland, Estonia, Austria, and Hungary. This marked new departures in that it reshaped the geopolitical and geographical landscapes of Europe in that old orders were eradicated, which laid the foundation of new countries with distinct paths. Besides, Oswald Spengler points out that “history goes through circles or phases of development” (Spengler par.1). This implies that the post-WWI era epitomizes a transition phase from one historical chapter to the other.

WWI also marked new departures in 20^th-century history through the rise of authoritarianism. The era saw the emergence of authoritarian nations like China and the Soviet Union. Notably, the previous century was not authoritarian, as ideologies like socialism were widely practiced. According to Spengler, “the last century [the 19th] was the winter of the West, the victory of materialism and skepticism, of socialism, parliamentarianism, and money. But in this century, blood and instinct will regain their rights against the power of money and intellect” (Spengler par.3). Fundamentally, in the 19^th century, ideals like liberalism, democracy, and individualism were declining. On the contrary, the war led to the rise of authoritarianism, which Spengler refers to as Caesars. Evidently, “the masses will accept with resignation the victory of the Caesars, the strong men, and will obey them” (Spengler par.3). He further points out that “it is the transition from Napoleonism to Caesarism” (Spengler par.1). Basically, this Caesarism refers authoritarianism which shaped the history of the aforementioned era. Also, WWI significantly impacted the economy across the globe. As a result of the war, the world witnessed economic hardships, with numerous countries having huge debts, inflation, and joblessness. The negative impact that the war had on the economy marked new departures through the creation of economic instability, which led to political dissatisfaction and unrest across societies. Furthermore, the instability in the economic sector provided fertile grounds for the Great Depression across the world.

Rise of Authoritarian Regimes

The 1930s saw the rise of authoritarian regimes across Europe. Among the factors that contributed to the emergence of the regimes of this era include the economic crisis caused by the Great Depression. The crisis saw numerous people lose their jobs, which also made the majority of the people poor. The joblessness and poverty that followed the 1930s Depression laid the foundation of extremist ideologies like authoritarianism, which promised to solve unemployment and poverty. That being so, the era saw the rise of authoritarian regimes. Besides the economic crisis, which created ripe conditions for the regime, the emergence of authoritarian leaders also led to the growth of authoritarianism. Authoritarian leaders emerged across Europe following the Great War. These leaders included the Spanish Francisco Franco, Hitler “Benito Mussolini of Italy” (Mussolini par.1). Most importantly, these authoritarian leaders adopted authoritarian ideals to solve social issues, which offered strong leadership and solutions to the economic problems that plagued Europe at the time; hence were widely accepted.

In addition, the western democracy was weak at the time. WWI made Western democracy weak in that it left the majority of European nations struggling to keep up with their weak system. Spengler affirms, “the era of individualism, liberalism and democracy, of humanitarianism and freedom, is nearing its end. The masses will accept with resignation the victory of the Caesars, the strong men, and will obey them” (Spengler par.3). Clearly, Spengler points out the weaknesses of democracy and liberalism. It was these weaknesses that the majority of European nations could not solve, such as the problems experienced by their citizens at the time, like the economic Depression. As European countries could not provide solutions to such problems, the mainstream populations lost faith in the ideology of their regimes. On the other hand, authoritarian regimes proved to have strong leadership and gave potent promises to solve the problems that were affecting the people. Therefore, it was easier to embrace authoritarian leaders than those who claimed liberalism and democracy, hence giving rise to authoritarian regimes across Europe in the era.

Fascism Vs. Nazism  

Besides the authoritarian regime, the war also prompted the rise of Nazism and fascism. Nazism was adopted by Adolf Hitler, while fascism was adopted by the Italian Mussolini. These two political ideals varied while at the same time had some common elements. To a greater extent, both ideologies were authoritarian. Fascism advocated for a more robust and centralized form of government, which was under the rule of one ruler with absolute control of the country. This was also the case of Nazism which championed an authoritarian government with a single ruler and a centralized government. Also, Hitler’s ideologies of Nazism rejected democracy. His political doctrine did not believe in the free will of the people and universal suffrage. Similarly, fascism rejected democracy. As per Benito, “fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application” (Mussolini par.4). To Mussolini, “fascism denies that the majority can direct human society; numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which cannot be leveled through the mechanical process like universal suffrage” (Mussolini par.4). Besides democracy, both doctrines were against socialism, liberalism and communism.

Additionally, both political doctrines advocated for national pride and expansionism. Notably, Nazism advocated for the concept of nationalism, and expansionism, which is the reason Hitler conquered various European countries in the two Wars. Similarly, fascism called for national glory and expansion. Evidently, “for Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say, the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and it is opposite a sign of decadence” (Mussolini par.8). This shows the expansionism of fascism doctrine. According to Benito, “fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude” (Mussolini par.9). Apparently, akin to Nazism that fought for the national pride of the German people, fascism also championed for national pride of Italy. Additionally, Nazism did not embrace the concept of equal rights for all Germans. Only individuals belonging to the superior race, Aryan, were allowed to enjoy equal rights. This was also the case in fascism, as dictated by Mussolini. He asserted, “the Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question is the State alone” (Mussolini par.8).

Despite their similarities, to some extent, Nazism differed from fascism. The central ideology of Nazism was that of race in that Hitler highly advocated for the superior. It was the race ideology that prompted the massacre of the Jews and gypsies. On the contrary, fascism fought for the progress of all Italians. For instance, “fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy,” meaning that all Italians were included (Mussolini par.9). The duo also differed in terms of their respective leaders’ visions. Mussolini envisioned the state as the central authority and the embodiment of the will of Italy. Contrarily, Hitler envisioned race superiority of the Aryans and a racially unified German government under Nazism doctrines.

The Two World Wars Settling Their Causes

The two wars failed to settle the issues that caused them entirely. Even though they significantly impacted the global and geopolitical landscape, the underlying issues that caused them were not entirely settled. For instance, among the causes of WWI was the military alliances among various disputing countries. The war failed to solve this cause as WWII was also fought based on military alliances. The issue also still persists as in the aftermath of WWII; various nations still maintain their military alliances as well as formed new alliances. Besides, the unresolved issues of the Great War laid the conditions for the outbreak of WWII. These issues include unresolved territories following WWI, which created tensions that re-emerged and caused the outbreak of WWII. The war also failed to solve the disunity among European nations. For instance, following the two wars, Europe was still divided between communism and Western democracy. Churchill highlighted that “from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent” (Churchill par. 5). Additionally, the conflicts that existed during the two wars were also not solved. For example, Churchill points out, “from what I have seen of our Russian friends and allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness” (Churchill par.14). From the statements, the rivalry between Russia and the western democracies is apparent. This conflict was not settled in the two World Wars as it is still persistent in contemporary society.

Future Legacies

In addition, the two wars also left significant legacies for the future. For example, it changed the geopolitical landscape in terms of sovereignty in that new world powers emerged, which were the Soviets and America. As per Winston, “the United States stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power” (Churchill par.1). Churchill further talks about the Soviet Union profoundly, pointing out the power it gained following the wars. The shift in the geopolitical landscape is also among the legacies of the wars as new nations were formed while, at the same time, old empires were eroded. Its legacies also include the loss of lives millions, human suffering, and trauma that followed the two conflicts. Technological innovations are also among its legacies, as the war saw the development of new technologies used in the war, like military weapons, modes of communication, and transportation. Most importantly, efforts to preserve global peace remain one of the significant legacies of the two wars. The aftermath of both wars saw nations coming together to create means to preserve global peace and prevent the reoccurrence of another war. For example, Churchill asserts, “surely we should work with conscious purpose for a grand pacification of Europe within the structure of the United Nations and in accordance with our Charter” (Churchill par.7). It is through these efforts that world wars have not reoccurred since the second one.