"the most important war of the modern era" Topic

I think most people would instinctively say that WW2 was the most important war of the modern era, but I recently had a very interesting discussion with a friend who reckons that the Russo-Japanese War was.
His logic is interesting – as well as breaking the long established dominance of the 'West' over the 'East', Russia's humiliation led directly to the Russian revolution and the success of the Bolosheviks in seizing power. This, he argued, was the most important event of the 20th Century.

Does he have a point?

Are there any other wars which had an importance beyond the obvious? For example, no less a man that Sir Winston Churchill claimed that the Jameson Raid on the Transvaal in 1895/6 was the 'beginning of all our troubles' and that it led directly to the First World War… which I think most people accept led to the Second World War.

Any others? Any thoughts?

Not a war but the twin C19 movements of Pan-Germanism and Pan-Slavism. All that Romantic Nationalist guff lead to what we got in the C20.

Yes, nineteenth century nationalism led to a century and a half of upheaval. If forced to pick a war, then 1866, the decisive war of German Unification. Brought us the joys of the FPW, WW1, WW2, Nazism, Communism and the Cold War.

But would the 19th century nationalism and pan-germanism exist without the French Revolution?

French Revolution is itself due to the bankrupcy France suffered because of its involvment in the American Revolution, which itself broke up because UK being bankrupt following the 7YW… etc.

Can someone point the origins of the 7YW, to go back even earlier?

For the Modern Era, IMHO, even if the russo-japanese war of 1905 had its importance, bolchevism and nazism could not have existed without the sufferings and the turmoil of WWI, and WWII was just a sequel of it. This opinion is shared by most contemporary scholars.

To place the blame for the Russian Revolution on the 'humiliation of the Russo-Japanese War' is quite a stretch. It might have been a contributing factor, but it was the long-term suffering of the Russian people and the incompetence and corruption of the ruling class that was the main cause. The revolution was going to come sooner or later.

ScottWashburn

I would tend to agree, but there was a mini-revolution because of the Russo-Japanese War, as well as mutinies etc (the most famous being the Potomkin).
Sure, revolution might have happened anyway, or perhaps Russia's absolute leaders would have slowly and peacefully given up their powers like in some other European nations? I think the point was that the loss to Japan acted as a catalyst.

"Can someone point the origins of the 7YW, to go back even earlier?"

I expect it is all those pesky Normans fault somewhere along the way, but the 7YW was rooted in the long dynastic struggles of the Hapsburgs. Ferdinand and Isabella, is it all their fault?

Renaud S

Yes – a fair point… how far back does one go?

…bolchevism and nazism could not have existed without the sufferings and the turmoil of WWI

See Romantic Nationalism above. We'd have got them in some form or another anyway…some of RN's assumptions are still going strong.

link

To the original thread, while the Russo-Japanese War did cause problems internally in Russia, had Russia been able to avoid WWI the slow pace of reform might have been able to move Russia into the 20th century

As well, the problems created in 1919 would not habe been a problem if there was no WWI

So – trying to avoid being overly reductivist (it was the fault of Cain and Abel) – I would say WWI

Frederick

I think WW1 is a fair call. When one looks at the world before and after it, the huge changes are evident – ancient Empires collapsing, the dramatic rise of US military power, social upheavals, 'nationhood' being affirmed in former colonies such as Australia, extension of sufferage, rise of extremism etc.

The Cod War the first war over food resources that was not land based!

I'd have gone for WW1, but in truth they're all related. One comes from another in a long, bloody, chain.

All European wars after Napoleon were caused by the introduction of the Waltz at the Congress of Vienna.

It's not wars, but dances that are dangerous!

This may surprise some people, but I think that the first Gulf War has had a massive impact on the future of warfare. Because of the huge advantages in technology and how the U.S. forces handled their operations, it has caused a major "shaking out" among nations that went far beyond what was essentially a regional conflict.

By that I mean many nations threw in the towel on keeping up to date with their armed forces. Orders have been cut back or cancelled, major weapons programs were stopped, and huge cutbacks in the numbers of armored vehicles, personnel, and weapons have occurred all over the planet with only a few exceptions. Most nations decided that either the U.S. or China would protect them/come to their aid or that it was too expensive to try and stay in the game. This also has had the effect of China spending like mad to try to get their armed forces up to par with the U.S. while Russia has now become purely an arms provider as they know that they can never compete in this arena for the foreseeable future.

Interesting argument. I have to agree with Scott, et al. – there were revolutions in the offing prior to the Russo-Japanese War and while it did contribute to the Big One, so did a lot of other things. On the other hand, an argument could be made that the Russo-Japanese War was the coming of age of Japan in the Modern Era, which established her as a modern industrial power. I think it could be argued successfully that that, coupled with Japan's past history and other events, helped to directly set the stage for WWII in the Pacific.

aegiscg47

An interesting point. For example, New Zealand no longer has an air force – but there is simply no way that the US and, (to a lesser extent) the UK and Australia, would ever stand by and watch NZ be invaded… so I guess the argument is: why waste the money on spending money on your own defence?
Many of those in Europe who loathe defence spending point out that 'America will protect us'… strangely, these people also seem to be the most vocal critics of Uncle Sam.

It's too early to tell.

Hmm, one thought – what are we defining as 'modern' here? To me 'modern' is anything after 1960, and ultra modern post cold war. In historial terms, the early modern period runs from around 1500-1750, which presumably means that 'modern' starts in 1751!

I think when a young Mr Washington opened fire on the French party that triggered the F&I war that led to the 7Years War the AWI the French Revolution the Revolutions of 1848 the Franco Prussian War and the First and Second World Wars and then the Cold War (which nearly led to all our deaths)….Thanks George--The biggest single bringer of death since the plague!!

"Modern" is also associated with the Industrial Revolutions- England 1740, American 1790, and in the case of China-1985.

Western Hegemony is a fact of H/history. However, its reasonable to allow the Russo-Japanese conflict as a factor in the upheavals that followed. But it did not reach across the world stage and singularly create WWI, WWII, nationalism, communism, fascism, and all the problems of the modern and post-modern world.

The Coke vs Pepsi War.

WWI

it changed the way wars were fought with a variety of technical advances that became a part of modern warfare, with a bigger change in arms in 4 years than in many years before hand. It was now mechanical warfare and allegedly the first war in which enemy action killed more men than disease ( not sure if that is true). It had its causes from the 19th C, but it was a watershed.

Phil

Boxer Rebellion ,not so much a War but a little stepping stone which started right at the beginning of the 20th century and contributed to the russo japan conflict mentioned earlier.

And sort of started the whole china republic thing going on.

I like the Russo-Japanese War, but for other reasons.

It established Japan as the major power in Asia and equal, at least in their eyes, to the Western Nations.

It set the tone for US-Japanese relations for the next 35 years from Teddy Roosevelt sending the Great White Fleet on its journey to Pearl Harbor and beyond.

It was a minor factor leading to the Russian Revolution, but the feud between Samsonov and Rennenkampf accelerated in the RJW and contributed to the Russian Army's defeat at Tannenberg.

David

My vote is for the Chinese Civil War (1932 – 1949) as it shaped modern China and Modern China will likely reshape the world in which we and our children will live! All of the other wars mentioned (and dances of course) have already happened and their effects are for the most part finished and set in stone.Of course mixed into this civil war is the Asian part of World War Two, the Cold War, the Korean Conflict and various Sino-Russian conflicts so the point gets somewhat murky. But for people living today, China will effect and affect their lives far more than any of the previously mentioned conflicts.
Rod Robertson

"the Chinese Civil War (1932 – 1949)"

That would be China, alright. Being invaded and occupied by Japan is no excuse to stop the revolution…

WWI was the last western war involving the big extended family that was European royalty. It caused (or was caused by) the end of most of those royal family lines as influencers of history.

But this topic does beg a question. I see different responses alluding to this question: "Most important in what way?" Social importance? Political importance? Important to the nature of warfare itself?

WWI and WWII were both vastly important to the nature and evolution of warfare, as was the Cold War that followed them. From a grand socio-political point of view, these two wars also form two halves of the war to end Empires. WWI brought the end of most of the prior empires, and WWII finished the job while also nipping a couple new ones in the bud. Even the winners were subject to this, as the British Empire became more cultural than political following WWII, and the US shed one of its largest overseas holdings. Only the Soviets retained any pretense of an "empire" in the political sense, though they would never have used the term.

I would have to say any war involving the independence of Israel up to today.

The Italian invasion of Libya, which helped spark the Balkan Wars would probably be as strong of a "precursor" influence as the 1905 war.

Really there was a lot fo tumult in the period, but so long as the big European powers stayed out of a direct slugging match the "system" could keep chugging along.

Even with all the "precursors" WW1 is still often viewed as an anomaly. Many other series episodes came and passed without a major blow up.

The before and after affect of WW1 makes leads it to being listed (along with the 30 years war) at the top of many peoples most important wars in history.

Well, while I am sticking to my guns on WWI, I think a number of excellent points have been made, notably aegiscg47 on the impact of the Gulf War – there is a very regretable tendency of many Western nations to rely on the good olde US, but when the anti-military crowd also is the anti-American crowd I think someone needs to remind them that whoever controls your defense policy also controls your foreign policy – this was one of the arguments in Canada about re-building the Canadian military

For example, New Zealand no longer has an air force – but there is simply no way that the US and, (to a lesser extent) the UK and Australia, would ever stand by and watch NZ be invaded…

Why would the US help? NZ wasn't even part of the ABCA cooperation – not sure if that arrangement is still going on.

Many of those in Europe who loathe defence spending point out that 'America will protect us'

I'm sorry – I heard that sort of nonsense from a very few naive fellow Canadians during the cold war, but never from any European. But to say such a thing about Eurpoeans today – well, Bulldog, although your topic is excellent as has been much of the discussion, I can't believe you could say such a thing.
--
Tim

Vietnam – and it doesn't need any explanation why.

As for NZ, you really have to be kidding if you think that the current US government would do anything except set up a round of multinational talks.

WWI. For all of the arguments listed above. The world was changed irrevocably in social, political and military form, and had a direct impact on the upheavals and changes in economics. Of course there were changes afoot in many areas – womens' suffrage, democratic movements etc., but WWI sped it all up and made it all happen – too fast for some people. The unfortunate abdication of monarchies in a short space of time meant that the developing constitutional democracies in places like Germany were left to the mercies of extremists.

As for the 'bludgers' in NZ, well, I'd say that their limited economy forces them to specialise a little. I believe that they do contribute to the missions of their allies where they can ;)

Since the causes of almost every war can be traced back to a previous war, I don't see WWI as having any special significance simply because the armistice laid the groundwork for WWII.

The first Gulf War is an interesting candidate, since there is a fairly bright line leading from it to 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan, the second Gulf War, the reality of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, and the rise of North Korea as a nuclear power.

All that aside, it is hard for me to imagine that any war, or event in the modern era, had anything close to the impact on the world than did the use of two atomic bombs at the end of WWII. ICBMs, long range bombers, and guided missile submarines (all having their developmental roots in WWII) meant that every single nation on earth was vulnerable to nuclear anihilation at the touch of a button. Put all of this together and the nature of war (and the world) had changed like never before. The nuclear arms race, and the concept of mutually assured destruction rendered total war obsolete. No other war ever, that I can think of, has been able to boast of this. Of course obsolesence of total war led to the rise of the proxy wars in Korea, Africa, Southeast Asia, Central America, and the Middle East.

But the importance of a war is not limited to its contributions to the cause of the next war. Modern war also stimulates great advances in science, technology, and academia. WWII directly led to some great strides in disease prevention and cures, television, the baby boom, nuclear power as a source of energy, and the space race, culminating in humans actually walking on the moon. I'm sure there is much more that I haven't thought of.

My point is this. WWII changed the entire world in ways never before seen or imagined. I do not think that any other war or event can compare. That said, I think it is interesting and useful to examine the effect of history's micro-events on the major events.

Ditto Bird

The reason I imagine the US / UK / Aus etc would move to protect NZ is that they would not sit back and let a peaceful democracy be invaded. I might well be wrong and hope that we never get to find out!

I had no intention of offending by saying what I did about Europeans relying on the US for defence, but I can honestly say I have heard this argument many times. For example, in various debates I have had with people about the UK retaining a nuclear arsenal, a common line which is trotted out is: 'why bother? the Americans would help us'. Also, if one looks at the truly dismal level of defence spending in the EEC as compared to the USA, it strikes me that Europeans simply do not take their defence seriously… and (in my opinion) a lot of this is due to the tacit belief that Uncle Sam would always step up to the plate.
Though my comment was based on personal experience and numerous debates / arguments on the subject, perhaps I was guilty of a sweeping statement and apologise if I offended you in some way, Tim.
For the record, I am neither American nor European.

Natholeon

Yes – I agree that NZ's economy is not huge, but it is a lot bigger than many other nations who have fighter jets, and the point is that they have retained an air superiority capability until recently.
As aegiscg47 pointed out, some nations seem to have realised that they simply can not keep any sort of credible military deterant in the wake of the First Gulf War. I wonder if we will see more and more nations simply not bothering with having any sort of armed forces, other than a para-military police force for civil defence?

War by themselves are rarely isolated in the course of history – they go accompanied by social unrest before and after, technological advances, economic changes, changes in the balance of power etc. A war is only one factor in a whole series of events. 'War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means'.

E.g. take WW1. Granted, WW1 instigated may of the social reforms that happened immediately after WW1: universal voting in many countries, rise of unions, better social security systems in many European countries etc. Those reforms would have happened anyway, even without WW1. In some sense WW1 was the result of the failure of the systems in place to address these needs. A war can speed up needed reforms, but is rarely the sole cause.

This is also apparant from the history books. Unless you really want to study the precise course of a specific war, it is usually not necessary to know the tactical/strategic/technological/… aspects of a war to judge its importance in history. You don't have to know the exact campaigns of Napoleon in order to judge the importance of the Napoleonic wars on the European landscape. Even the fact that he was defeated at Waterloo is only a factoid in the bigger scheme – let alone know the names of the other battles or of famous generals.

But anyway – what is the most important war in the modern times? It's not a military war, but probably a diplomatic one – the coninuous struggle to form the EU out of a dozen of nation-states formed in the 19th century. That process – although slow and often frustrating – will have a much bigger impact on the life of future Europeans than any previous local or global war.

aegiscg47 makes a good point, but the Gulf War also coincided with the breakup of the Soviet Union. Countries like Belgium, for example, aren't really worried about being invaded by Poland nowadays. But it is still an interesting case. The Gulf War was all about overwhelming air power and precision strikes. The Opium Wars were pretty much the same affair, just with ships.

As for Europe not defending itself, it is the US' single biggest market. It would be economic suicide for the US NOT to help it. As for defense, other than Russia, who is in a position to invade them? Certainly not Libya. And as a region, it will still have something like 4 F-35/Typhoon equipped aircraft carriers.

Phil Dutre

And I fear that the loser in the important war you mention will be democracy.

Lampyridae

That's if the Royal Navy ones are ever built and is still pathetic in comparion to the USN. I would have thought that the spectre of a resurgent and re-arming Russia is reason enough for the Europeans to take defence seriously – and who knows what will happen in the next 10 years? You rightly point out that the US needs to protect it's overseas markets / interests – so why do you consider this not to be the case for Europe? The USA has a similar population and GDP to the EEC, but a military capacity at least an order of magnitude more powerful – and who is in a position to invade the US?

No one in their right mind would invade New Zealand. They have the ultimate weapon at their disposal; yes, i mean Xena – Warrior Princess!
Rod Robertson.

I was speaking to my brother in law last week and he said that the shipyard where he works still has the contract to build two carriers. They've just launched one destroyer and are about to start on the second. Once that's done it's start work on the carriers.

Blue water navies are funny things. You only really need them to project your power. Remove the US's overseas interests and you remove the need for a large part of the USN.

Russia doesn't have one, and never really has, so you don't actually need anything much to face down that, largely non-existent, threat. In terms of land warfare they've got a long way to go before they can threaten anything much of Europe. Thinking of another thread on here my money would be on Poland winning any conflict right now. I imagine they're more concerned by their southern and eastern borders.

Rod Robertson

And what a way to go…

@Lampyridae

I feel Europe is being invaded right now, but that's another discussion, and not suited for this topic.

Most important war? Probably the Spanish Civil War, since it focused the Right and Left wing movements, something that is still the reason that Europe will never be united.

@Bulldog69

You misread my post; the US would of course aid its biggest market (not to mention long-standing treaties). As for aircraft carriers, yes they're pathetic but they're more than the rest of the world combined at the moment (excluding of course the US).

NZ is not bludging, in recent years we have deployed troops to the Balkans, East Timor, The Solomans (police), and Afghanistan (both reconstruction and SAS) to name a few. A Victoria Cross has been awarded to one of our SAS troopers -these are not given out lightly!! We have highly regarded and respected navy, air and army forces.

There is no strike force in the airforce and 6 x 40 year skyhawks are hardly air superiority! But we will make do so head on down BULLDOG69 and we will give you a fight to remember! And leave Xena alone please, national treasure right there.

NZ has for a number of years (and even right now in Afghanistan with the SAS) contributed to both UK and US wars. We have paid a price in blood that is extremely high per head of population (especially when led by the British). That is why either would/should assist NZ, because we have assisted you!

Many of the wars mentioned are important and influential events in the annals of history. But it is "imperialism" and the competition of European powers that led to these wars of conquest and acquisition.

WilleB you raise a very pertinent point – Europe may be simply reaping the whirlwind, for years it took the wealth of the americas, africa and asia and squandered it in horrendous continental conflicts.

Phil Dutre also raises a very good point, EU unity is important as perhaps is ASEAN unity in stopping future wars of competition.

"aegiscg47

An interesting point. For example, New Zealand no longer has an air force…"

That's not strictly correct. The RNZAF no longer has a combat arm, but it still exists and flies transport aircraft and helicopters.

And I do not believe that situation came about due to the Gulf War or a changing strategic situation.

We had / have underfunded our military for so long, and our economy has underperformed for so long that we could not afford to replace our Skyhawks when they reached the absolutely undeniable-any-longer end of their useful life. In reality they were so far out of date we effectively hadn't had a combat arm for well over a decade anyway.

NZ does partly rely on our allies to protect us, but our first line of defense is and always has been the Pacific Ocean, and the fact we are hardly worth bothering with. We are not in a strategic location for anything unless Antarctica becomes a vital strategic area. Want something from NZ? Buy it. We will sell it to you happily.

Given that, 'collective security' is still the keystone of our formal defense policy and NZ makes contributions to a variety of military operations around the world: including East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. We are another flag in an international operation, and our infantry and special forces make genuine contributions.

Special forces in particular have become more important since the development of laser guided munitions and this is one area the RNZA can and does make valuable contributions, which have been recognised by our allies.

link

it is very possible that NZ invests in UAVs, if they are cheap enough.

For the record, I am neither American nor European.

@Bulldog69

Are you in SA? I'm looking for people to play with when I get back. Wargaming's miserable there, but it can only be better than Japan! What scale and period do you play?

[Phil Dutre

And I fear that the loser in the important war you mention will be democracy.]

I must respectfully disagree. The EU is a democratic organisation and the fact it is and always has been a 'democracies-only club' was an important factor in the peaceful transition of both Spain and Greece from dictatorships to democracies.

Many folks in the United States of America do not seem keen on Europe's states become united. I am not sure why.