The greatest cause of World War 1 was the European Alliances. Before World War I commenced certain European nations had entered into many alliances to protect themselves from each other. This paper will discuss the ten major alliances formed in Europe before 1914. The countries created alliances between themselves to motivate their defense which would bring the mighty armies together in case of War.
The Dual Alliance was formed in 1879. It consisted of Austria-Hungary and Germany. Bismarck wanted to protect Austria-Hungary from possible Russian attacks which would eventually occur because Russia attacked Turkey and stole the Treaty of San Stefano. Germany needed Austria-Hungary as an ally because if ever Austria-Hungary fell under the control of Russia, the Russians would attack the Germans next. Germany used the alliance as a defensive method to their advantage. Two years later the Germans and Austro-Hungarians realized that Russia wouldn't attack them if they let Russia join their Alliance. In 1881, the three countries created the Three Emperor's League. This was an attempt to restore stability to eastern Europe. This alliance was not successful because of Russian problems with the Bulgarians. That same year Austria-Hungary created a new alliance with Serbia called the Austro-Serbian Alliance. The two nations adapted this alliance to further limit possible Russian influence in the Balkans. In 1882, Austria-Hungary and Germany would form yet again another Alliance. They brought Italy into the new alliance and they called themselves The Triple Alliance. This strategic alliance was formed for the soul purpose of stopping Italy from attacking Austria-Hungary in the event of war with Russia. Bismark created a Reinsurance Treaty with Russia, which was an attempt to avoid this seemingly inevitable war. A year later Austria-Hungary and Germany would kicked Russia out of their Alliance. They adopted Romania into a new Alliance and renamed it The Austro-German-Romanian Alliance. The alliance was created because of the perceived Russian intentions in the Balkans.
Russia was beginning to see the many alliances against them. They started forming alliances with the remaining European countries to protect themselves in case of War. In 1894, Russia teamed up with France (one of the most powerful European countries in that time). They formed the Franco-Russian Alliance. This alliance was extremely influential. The new German Chancellor Caprivi dropped the Russian Reinsurance Treaty. Germany renewed The Triple Alliance. Germany also got very friendly with the "Mediterranean Entente" (Great Britain, Italy, and Spain) to protect itself from France and Russia. Later in 1895, Germany finally realized that it could benefit from its relations with Russia and France, and things settled down for a while. Russia needed more than just one alliance to compete with the four other alliances battling with them. Bulgaria had just become independent from the Ottoman Empire, they needed a lot of protection against the Austro-Hungarians so they accepted the Russian plan right away. Russia went over to Bulgaria in 1902 and later formed the Russo-Bulgarian Military Convention.
France saw that Russia was getting more power with its new alliances and France was scared so they to formed new alliances. The first alliance they formed was in 1904 with Great Britain. The alliance was named The Entente Cordiale. France felt very secure with Great Britain because the two countries had an immense amount of power in Europe. This agreement between the two countries was more a sign of healing relations than an alliance. Russia had observed what France was doing and they to wanted power so they united with Great Britain in 1907. They formed The Anglo-Russian Entente. Many countries wanted to ally with Great Britain because Great Britain was the only country in Europe with naval powers. In case of War they would be able to defend themselves pretty well. Great Britain and Russia had settle their differences and they soon took this final step toward the Triple Entente. Great Britain had noticed that they had two alliances, one with France and the other with Russia. Great Britain decided to unite the two alliances and create one soul alliance. The Triple Entente occurred the same year as The Anglo-Russian Entente. The Triple Entente consisted of Great Britain, France, and Russia. This alliance would surely be recognized through the other alliances. This alliance worsened relations between Germany and Great Britain. This final alliance drew the lines for the War that would follow Germany's worst fears of encirclement were realized and a two front War had been made a certainty.
So, by 1910, there were two major European Alliances. In 1914, Princip fired his gun, the effects were felt throughout Europe as each nation declared war on an enemy of its allies. Many people were going to War and they didn't really understand why. The more allies a country had the more powerful they became. The countries with fewer allies were defeated shortly and the countries with greater amounts of allies fought for four years.
In the Great War the Alliances were a good thing and a bad thing. The good thing about them was many smaller nations were protected from war because they had allies with powerful European countries. The bad side about the Alliances was that they faced the major nations into war, though none really had much to gain. The Alliances may have made the war better or it might have made the war much worse. Nobody can tell the real answer to this question but I feel that it made the war better for some countries and worse for other countries but the alliances were the main reason of World War 1.
The second most devastating war of all time is without a doubt World War One (1914-1918). More countries participated in this war more than any other, besides the second world war. This war lasted much longer than expected, and casualties were immense. Bloodshed spread over Europe, nearly ten million soldiers had lost their lives on the battle fields. A bullet from an assassin's gun condemned the five powers of Europe to engage in brutal warfare over a period of four years. On June 28, 1914, an assassin, Givrilo Princip, gunned down the heir to the Austrian throne, Archduke Francis Ferdinand. The assassin was believed to be to have ties with a terrorist group in Serbia, this led to the conclusion that the Serbian government was behind the murder. The idea behind the actions of Gavrilo Princip, is that his cause was of nationalist intentions. This triggered war between Austria-Hungry and Serbia. It was the beginning of World War One.
Now, why would all the powers of Europe entangle themselves in this rivalry? The causes are many. Yet there are four that seem to stand out most, the rise of nationalism, military build-up, new technologies, and the system of military alliances. Other minor things include, industrialization, no international body, and the concept of honor. Of these causes, what has most significant one would be the rise of nationalism. It was nationalism that led to most of the other causes.
First, there was a great increase of nationalism developing. Nationalism swept across the continent, which was notably responsible for the First World War. The populations became increasingly more engaged with their loyalty to their nations and the goals of the area. Nationalism involved all those who shared a common language, history, and culture. Eventually the goals of one nation got into conflict with the views of others, which easily led to the threat of war. This was obviously inevitable, since not all share common views, even the slightest disagreement was magnified into major problems and sparked the of war. The population was given the right to vote in Western Europe, which gave them greater interest and greater pride in the nations goals. Thus nationalism dealt with much honor and pride. The people wanted to defend their interests and wanted to look good. They felt that the honorable thing to do was fight in the war. Due to pride multiple countries participated in the war. Even The United States got involved, when a ship carrying Americans was destroyed by German U-Boats. This acted as a catalyst to fuel the angry of the United States. To protect their honor they joined the war in an effort to crush Germany.
Nationalism promoted the expansion of pre existing armies and building up military power to obtain their goals by force. If an obstacle blocked their path to their goals, they would not hesitate to rage war. Germany was the first to expand by facilitating conscription, they had a pre existing army as all the other countries. Britain was an island, which was protected by the most powerful navy in the world. Thus Great Britain was not concerned with the German army. Yet further down the road Germany also created a great naval force of their own powerful enough to rival that of Great Britain. This immediately caused bitter enemy hatred between Great Britain and Germany.
The destructive capabilities of army's were greatly increased with new technological weapons of war. Great Britain possessed the most powerful battleship in the waters known as the Dreadnought. It was heavily armored and had greater firepower than any ship, The Germans quickly scrambled to construct similar naval units. New guns were developed over time, machine guns and more accurate guns were constructed. Tanks, air planes, poisonous gas, and submarines soon joined the war. The Germans built Big Bertha, the largest cannon of that time, it was able to launch shells 70 miles. Steamships and railroads quickly allowed the movement of army foot soldiers to become more rapid. The ability to develop these new marvels was due to industrialization. They were motivated by nationalistic interests to do this. Similarly, nationalist wanted to defend their goals and interest with these powerful weapons.
Finally, we come to the final cause of World War One. The pre-existing entangled alliances. Obviously it played a fairly large role of starting up war. They were created partially due to nationalism. They were trying to protect their nationalistic interests. Most of the European countries also allied with one another to have a sense of security. A country hoped that the alliances formed would discourage any enemy attacks. In a case where the allied country was attacked, the member of the alliance would aid in the battle. There were basically two alliances that existed in Europe. The Triple Alliances (1887) mainly consisted of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. Where as the other, Triple Entente (1907) had members that included Great Britain, France, and Russia. This concept is what appears to be the most significant cause of the first world war. If these alliances hadn't existed, Every country in Europe would not have engaged themselves into a horrible four year bloodshed.
Conclusively, it is possible to say that Nationalism was the major factor that contributes to the massive continental warfare. If nationalism did not arise, there would have been no alliances developed, nor an arms race, and pre-existing armies. Nationalism is the notion that started everything which is linked as a cause of the destructive First World War.
Wars have been caused by countless reasons in the past, ranging on scales from small tribal spats to huge conflicts involving most of the industrialized world. However, very few wars have been caused by one clear reason. Many wars are the culmination of numerous annoyances. World War 1 is a perfect example of this. Many examples of political tensions can be given in the time leading up to WW1. The main force behind these confrontations was an underlying want for a war. Many people held a romanticized notion of what war was. National pride was at stake for many countries. New advances had been made in the warfare technology. WW1 happened because many people felt it was simply time to have another war.
Most people living in 1914 Europe had no idea what war was really like. The last war Europe had been involved in was the Franco-Prussian war in 1870. This was a relatively small war compared to WW1. Since the media was a mere shadow of what it is today, public awareness at the time had been nowhere near what it is today, people didn't know the truth about the atrocities of war. Their image of war was of noble, immaculately uniformed soldiers nobly marching towards the enemy with their bayonets proudly raised Many people had been raised on the myths of Napoleon, the short guy who conquered all. Many people were eager to go into war. When the war first started, most of the soldiers were very optimistic, and believed that the war would be a short ordeal. The German motto was, "Lunch in Paris, dinner in St. Petersburg." and the English said, "Home for Christmas pudding." These mottoes demonstrated the eagerness that the men felt, and the certainty that they would win quickly and easily. War was seen as an adventure when many soldiers first set out, and their ruler, backed by such vehement cries for war from the people, had no choice but to comply.
National pride has always been very important. Fighting, and more importantly, winning a war was, and still is, considered very significant. The best example of this is Germany, and specifically, Kaiser Wilhelm II. He was obsessed with war and the idea of German superiority. He once wrote, in response to a newspaper article regarding the British Navy, "Quite good, except for the ridiculous insinuation that we are aspiring after the hegemony in Central Europe. We simply are Central Europe..." Even Russia, with their severe shortages of supplies and extremely outdated weapons felt that with the bravery of their force they could defeat the machine gun totting Germans. Britain had their honor of being the rulers of the sea to defend from the quickly gaining Germans. The French had ongoing disputes over Alsase and Lorraine, which Germany had taken from them previously. The rulers of many countries saw war as a way to increase their power, and were reluctant to back away from a war because of fear that this would show them to be weak.
There had been many recent technological advances in warfare. The machine gun had been greatly improved. The British had developed "Big Bertha", a device that could fire shells over seventy miles, bombarding the enemy while leaving the attackers unexposed, a huge change from the days of hand to hand combat. The British, who had been the traditional navel power of Europe, was in the midst of a race for the naval supremacy with Germany. Britain developed the Dreadnought, a ship which equaled any three previous ships combined. Germany led by the Kaiser and Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz sought to make the German navy a massive power. Any child, given a new toy, won't be able to resist trying it out as soon as they get a chance. The nations of Europe were affected with this same eagerness. Any one nation stocking up on weapons is bound to cause the other nations to get nervous, and start stocking up weapons of their own, which inevitably leads to a confrontation, such as WW1.
WW1 was caused by people, both leaders and the general public, wanting to have a war. It's part of human nature. The sack of Troy didn't last over ten years just because of Helen, no matter how pretty she was. The murder of Franz Ferdinand, the event which sparked WW1, was simply the excuse, not the reason. Most soldiers probably weren't aware of this event, nor many of the other causes for the war. The people of Europe thought that the war would be exciting , cloaking them in glory, as it had the people that they heard about in myths. The nations saw war as a chance to prove themselves, especially Germany, which now believed itself to be an unstoppable power. The arms race that the major nations were involved in could only have resulted in the eventual testing of this new power. It happened before WW1, it has happened since, and in all likelihood, it will happen again. The destructive, envious, power crazy element of human nature causing a bloodshed that could have been averted had there been earlier attempts to stop it. WW1, although the largest up to its time, was simply another episode in the never ending cycle of human malice and destruction.
Many would say the turning point of World War II, was the atomic bomb, others would say the introduction of a new jet plane. But in all truth, the turning point of the war would have to be the battle for Britain. As Winston S. Churchill said, it was "their finest hour."
The battle for Britain was the turning point of the war for many reasons. First and most obvious is that it gave the Allies an easy jumping off point into Europe. If Britain had fallen, the Allies would have had to bring invasion ships from America or some far off place. This would not have been possible, with the wolf packs roaming the Atlantic. The bombing of Hitler's factories and coastal defenses could not have happened. The planes of that day couldn't just take off from America and fly to some bombing raid in France, it wasn't possible back then.
"Our fate now depended upon victory in the air" said Winston Churchill, The German leaders recognized that all their plans for the invasion of Britain depended on winning air supremacy above the Channel and the chosen landing places on the south coast. The result, turned to the destruction of the RAF (Royal Air Force). If the RAF had lost the battle for Britain victory over Britain in the air could bring about the end of the British Empire and her resistance, and that actual invasion, even if it became practicable, would also become easier, except for the occupying of a defeated country and her colonies. This would have left the German army with an untold number of men to call upon.
A less thought about reason, is the mentality. The German army flew across Europe and seemed impossible to beat. It began to back up Hitler's idea of Germans being the super race. Till they hit the Channel that small bit of water that hadn't been crossed by a invasion force in many years. It was the only thing that stood in his way. Hitler decided to start operation "Sea Lion" the invasion of Britain. This plan called for command of the air. It had been deemed impossible to move German armies across the Channel without air support. With Britain winning this battle the Germans suffered there first defeat of the second world war. This old power had stood up to the German war machine and beat them back. It was possible to beat back the German war machine..
A more technical view, is that the German Luftwaffe had lost many of their numbers, to the Royal Air Force. They had lost many veteran pilots and a great number of their planes. This would put a dent into their air force that couldn't be rebuilt. When Hitler finally gave up on Britain the German Air Force moved to the Russian front, yet they didn't have as many planes or pilots to call upon.
The British Empire had held colonies in many countries. If the battle for Britain had been lost, the colonies wouldn't have had their 'head', for lack of a better word. With them winning the battle, and the colonies support they could continue the war in the middle east. Punching more holes in the German's god like appearance.
The Russian's wouldn't say the battle for Britain helped them much, seeing as Germany turned to Russia after losing the battle. But it did, with Germany being kicked in the butt they turned to Russia, this gave the Allies the time they needed to organize them selves, and allowed America to build up her industrial might. Followed by her later entry into the war.
With England being used as a jump point, it greatly shortened the war. After the German forces had been beaten back using England as a main base. The Allies could now turn there full attention on Japan.
After closely looking, you begin to see the battle for Britain was the major turning point in the war. Hitler had to invade and conquer England, or face an indefinite prolongation of the war, with all its incalculable hazards and complications. After losing the battle all these complications turned up. Britain was the spring board for the bombing of German Europe, and a staging area for the invasion of Europe. German city's were forced to suffer the fate of bombing. The fate of World War II, and the freedom of the world originally rested upon the British people and the battle of Britain. That "supreme confidence in themselves as individuals and the determination which the British race displays in fullest measure when in supreme adversity" shone through. Saving the world from Hitler's evil grasp.
Quotes Their Finest Hour by Winston S. Churchill
Without warning, on August 6, 1945, an American plane dropped a single nuclear bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan. It was an event that most would say marked the end of World War II. Three days later, on August 9, another bomb was unleashed on the city of Nagasaki. In all, an estimated 200,000 civilians were killed, either from the blast and heat of the bomb itself, or from radiation sickness afterwards. They destroyed many square miles of city, leaving thousands of people homeless. On August 14, Japan surrendered bringing a swift close to the most destructive war the world had ever seen. Much historical debate has centered around the decision to drop the atomic bomb. Many say that it was necessary in order to end the war but this is not the case. America was not justified in its decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Nearing the end of the war, Japan knew that it was defeated and wanted to make negotiations to end the fighting. Even from the beginning of the war, the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal and the Emperor's closest advisor, Koichi Kido, as well as the Emperor himself had the desire for peace. For the first few months of the war, Kido tried desperately to persuade military rulers to negotiate before America grew too strong. As the war progressed and grew, the Emperor became even more convicted that he wanted it to end. By tradition, however, he could not order the government to end the war. The Emperor was considered above politics and therefore was not supposed to give direct orders. He did, though, express his desire for peace and the government and military rulers could not go against the wishes of His Imperial Majesty. The war would try and be stopped.
In June and July of 1945, Japan attempted to have the Soviet Union (with whom they had a neutrality pact with at the time) try and mediate peace for them with the United States. Messages were sent by the Foreign Minister Togo to the Japan Ambassador to Moscow Sato. These messages contained express wishes to terminate the war and to have negotiations. Japan did not want to continue fighting and had no intention of more conquest. The U.S.A. knew of these peace overtures. They had broken the secret codes of communication that the Japanese used and knew that Japan wished for peace.
In July of 1945, the Potsdam conference was held and a proclamation was written up. It declared "the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces". When the Japanese became aware of its contents, they were disturbed by the absence of any mention of the Emperor and the retention of the Imperial Throne. The Emperor was considered by all Japanese to be a living god, the very stone foundation, the soul of Japan. His demise was unacceptable. The military rulers were scared by this "unconditional surrender" and by the possibility of the Emperor being dethroned and so refused to surrender.
The U.S.A. knew of the importance of the Emperor to the Japanese. Secretary of War, Henry Stimson and President Harry Truman had even discussed having the Japanese government be allowed to include "a constitutional monarchy under the present dynasty". Somehow, this line never got included in the Potsdam Proclamation. After the bomb was dropped, the Emperor was allowed to keep his throne and the Truman even saw him as being a figurehead and beneficial. If President Truman had seen fit to include retention of the Imperial Throne, Japan might have surrendered right away, which would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides and would have eliminated the need for the atomic bomb.
The atom bombs were used on a defenseless country. They hit at a time when the Navy was sunk, the Air Force was virtually destroyed, their homeland surrounded by Americans, their supplies and war materials completely cut off from the mainland. Millions were already left homeless, starving and dead by endless B-29 bombings. Japan had already been defeated; the Allies had already won. American and Japanese military leaders knew that. A Strategic Bombing Survey came to the conclusion that the war would have ended by November of that same year.
The decision to drop the bomb itself was not even in the interest of the world. It was fueled by the American people's wishes for revenge against the Japanese whom they considered to be subhuman beasts who deserved to be destroyed for initiating the war by their attack on Pearl Harbor. The A-bomb was first created as way to keep Hitler in line should he ever get the knowledge required to build one. So much time and effort was put into its creation that eventually the government was determined and committed to ultimately use it. This would justify the expenditure of so much time and money. General Groves and Henry Stimsom saw the bomb as another military weapon and what other purpose does a weapon have than to be used? The most justifiable reason for dropping the bomb is that it would end the war and save the lives of thousands of people. So, the bomb was dropped, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, women and children alike, just to be able to save tens of thousands of American soldiers who would invade the mainland of Japan. Japan was defeated already and an invasion was not necessary. Japan wanted to surrender, as long as they could keep the soul of their nation, the Emperor. America was not justified to drop the bomb in the first place and looking at their motives, it becomes even apparent that the bomb shouldn't have even been placed in their hands.
If an atomic bomb wasn't going to stop the war, then what was? America had many options open to them that would have perhaps resulted in the saving of countless Japanese and American lives. Japan could have been warned of the bomb in some fashion. They could have been shown a demonstration of its power on an isolated military base or been shown evidence of the successful testing of the bomb in New Mexico. The Japanese could have been warned of the impending threat of a Soviet invasion which would have caused an impossible war to be fought on two fronts. As said before, the war could have possibly ended much sooner had the Americans mentioned keeping the Imperial Throne intact at the time of the Potsdam Conference. All of these alternatives were there, but the Americans were set on using their bomb. They avoided all of these and kept on insisting it was the only way to end the war. They didn't even try to find a way to end the war more peacefully. Today, it can't be proved that these measures would have worked but how can things ever be known if they aren't tested out first?
A common saying claims that, "War is hell," and that anything can and must be done to stop war. However, when it comes to innocent civilians, we tend to draw the line. How is it then that people can be horrified at Hitler and the Holocaust and then, without a conscience, bomb a city and, in a few seconds, obliterate thousands upon thousands of women and children? If America had been similarly bombed, this would have been considered a war crime and the offender would have been hanged as a criminal at the Nuremberg trials.
America was not justified in dropping not only one, but two, nuclear bombs on Japan. Perhaps the only good thing that came out of it was the knowledge of its horror and its devastation so that it will never be used again.
Change is inevitable. As hard as many traditionalists and conservatives will try to prove that the opposite is true, it is obvious from the world around us that change is constant and cannot be avoided. As we come to the close of the twentieth century, it is apparent that the face of the world has drastically been transformed. What has been the biggest change our world has seen since the year 1901?
We live today among the physical wonders of towering skyscrapers, complex highway systems and limited living space that are necessary on account of the over-populated Earth. We live with motion, speed and technology as everyday part of our lives. We live in a society obsessed with the Internet and with television. Anyone of these aspects of life at the end of the twentieth century could be considered a big change for humanity, but the question is, why have these things come about? Why have we become the way we are today?
Society, as scientists, as architects, as individuals, has lost its sense of humanity; its sense of nature, of history, of pride. Scientists have evolved from reveling in the beauty of the physical world to reducing it to mere numbers and geometrical shapes. Architects have lost touch with their ancestral roots and have resorted to building using only straight lines and glass. Individuals are slowly being assimilated by technology and computers, no longer being able to rely on themselves. It is these things that have shaped the world that we live in today.
Greek scientists as well as the people of that time believed that the world was music and that creation was a dance. They reveled in nature and its beauty. Creation was beautiful as well as orderly. Scientists were drawn to the world just as much by their love for the surprisingly beautiful patterns they discovered, as well as by their desire for knowledge. They made logical discoveries and conclusions at the same time as they communed with nature.
Obviously, science has evolved tremendously since the times of the Greeks and Romans. However, until well into the twentieth century, it was well received that nature was beautiful and exquisite. In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote a book that was considered to be one of those books that changes history, The Origin of Species. It is in this book of science that he outlines his theory of evolution that has been so widely received in the world today. In view of the topic, it would be acceptable if the book was slightly boring and stale. Darwin himself believed that he was writing dry scientific prose. He was wrong. The Origin of Species is full of beautiful and sensitive passages. He speaks as one with nature, not being entirely devoted to facts but entirely in tune with his environment. This style initiated a whole new genre of writing that focused on the intricate beauties of nature.
In 1917, D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson published a book called On Growth and Form that outlined a new basis for biology by placing it on a purely mathematical function. He spoke on the interrelation of species based on distortion of graphs using mathematical principles. He believed everything in nature was a matter of geometry, numbers and calculations. A sphere was a sphere whether it was a raindrop or a human tear. In it was no emotion, no life at all. In 1917, the application of mathematics to all facets of life was a risky maneuver. It was a violation of an unspoken feeling that life can't be quantified. Now, however such a notion is entirely plausible.
In the 1970's, Benoit Mandelbrot came up with a theory that complicated things even more. He suggested that we don't exist in one, two or three dimensions but that we can exist in fractal dimensions, or decimals. He even said that existing in one, two or three dimensions was possible but highly unlikely. This is just a measure of how far science, in some ways, has gotten out of control in the last quarter of this century. It has changed the way we look at ourselves and at the world around us; no longer as human beings and beauty but as numbers, decimals, geometric shapes and mathematical relationships. Nature is, of course, still there, but we have lost the ability to study it while at the same time, appreciating its beauty.
Architecture, because of its close connection with Technology, is also a good indicator of how modern culture has evolved. In 1889, the Eiffel Tower was built to commemorate the centennial of the French Revolution. Its metal curves and tallness, however, did nothing to evoke memories of the past. Gustave Eiffel, the architect, was just showing off his superb knowledge of architecture. The Eiffel Tower does nothing to promote French culture. It is just there, a work of pure engineering. It was a premonition of things to come.
Washington, D.C. is a very good example of the disappearance of history, of roots, in architecture. The Capitol Dome was built to evoke the republican tradition of Greece and Rome. It was built with curves, with statues, columns, etc. Other buildings such as banks were built using pillars, gargoyles and the like. Across from the Capitol Dome, was the Russell building, built in 1933. It was elegantly classical, with rounded columns and bowed windows. These buildings gave the people a sense of history, of pride, of remembering their roots. In 1958, the Dirksen Building was erected right down the street. It was classical, yet the walls were flat, the windows square, panels of dark metal covered the outside. In the 1970's the building was built directly beside the Dirksen building. No statue, column, frieze or pillar adorned this structure. It was row on row of two story rectangular boxes creating a building. As you walk down this avenue, you can see history disappearing right before your eyes.
Skyscrapers continued being built using glass, mirrors, straight angles and lines. Their basic structural principles were of piling columns on top of each other. People who were opposed at this new architectural style free of any sense of history called these buildings "glass boxes" and "great hulking structures", which is essentially what they are. Great cities' skyscrapers dwarf the historical parts of the town that gives the city its pride and its roots. Brasilia, the capital of Brazil, has had many expensive and elaborate buildings built. The city, extremely poor in some parts, has been referred to as being inhuman, as being out of touch with its inhabitants and this, they say, is the direct cause of architecture.
This use of linear structure in architecture may seem very trivial as a big change of the twentieth century but it does show the fact that society, as a whole, has accepted the fact the it has forgotten its history and has nothing in its cities to remind it of its roots.
One of the greatest technological advancements of the twentieth century has been the computer and other mechanical devices such as robots. Since the 1950's there has been a slight concern over the "humanity" of these computers. Do these computers have intelligence? Are they aware of themselves? Maybe not to that extent but artificial intelligence programs are symbolic of human behaviour. Computers speak "languages". They have a "memory". It uses "logic" and "reason". It "understands" and can "play" chess. It can "talk". Its senses include "vision", "hearing", "touch". Robots, developed in great numbers in the 1970's, "walk", have "arms", and "fingers". They do menial jobs in the factories such as handling radioactive materials, working in dirty, noisy places, etc.. Robots and computers resemble humans very similarly. Soon, we could be working side by side with them, as partners. In the future, it could even possible to have androids like Data, from Star Trek or C3PO, of Star Wars. Some may say that that is a bit extreme but cyborgs (half-machine, half-man) already exist today all around us. We have artificial limbs, hearts, kidneys, pacemakers..
This evolution to seemingly artificial intelligence is a cause for great concern for many. It demonstrates a loss of our humanity, of our being reduced to less. So why not pull the plug? We've come to rely on computers so much that they are now a part of everyday life. Machines, like God, are an excuse not to believe. We use calculators and never question why the answers are what they are, just as we say "God works in mysterious ways" to justify what can't be proven. We've been assimilated by this technology and now cannot live with out it. We no longer have the ability to sustain ourselves, by ourselves.
T.S. Elliot's poem, The Waste Land. is a long lament for the loss of an earlier purity. Nobody should be lamenting the fact that we are evolving. Change is progress. Mathematics and technology have done wonders for the advancement of our world and race. Still, in the midst of all this advancement, we should never lose touch with nature, with history or with ourselves.
My grandfather had to walk a mile to get to my grandmother's house in order to shoot pebbles on her window just to get a chance to talk to her for five minutes and get a brief kiss before her father who was a hunter came out and chased after him. Listening to this endless ordeal I asked myself if he would have risk being chased after my great grandfather if he had a cellular phone? My grandmother says `yes' but I think not. It is at the end of this endless story that I concluded that the greatest change of the twentieth century is the change in telecommunications.
Telecommunication is the transmission and reception of messages over long distances. The earliest forms of telecommunication were visual signaling with flags, lamps, or smoke. Thankfully, today the term refers to a wide variety of electrical and electronic communication systems which can work world wide.
Let's start with the most common way of communication other than talking on the telephone. Before he telephone if you wanted to communicate with any relative overseas the only way was by mail which takes way to long. Imagine wanting to tell your aunt your getting married. By the time the letter would get there you probably already had your first kid. Or even worse, what if someone in your family was terribly ill by the time the person would receive the letter the other one would have died already.
Or imagine trying to have a long distance relationship. I won't even go there! I know what your thinking just send the mail "express"! Well after consulting with a Canada post office near my house I discovered that sending mail express overseas takes two days to get there. Personally, I think that is way too long. Even though the telephone was invented in 1876 it is only in the twentieth century that the communication with telephones really evolved. The first long distance telephone connection was made in 1915 between New York city and San Francisco. Undersea telephone cables between North America and Europe were only invented in 1956. Today the telephone serves for services other than local and long distance phone calls. Just by using the phone we could pay bills, find our daily horoscope, get the latest weather reports etc. The possibilities are unimaginable.
Who would have ever imagined that high school kids carrying pagers on them? Pagers (beepers) help us contact people by transmission through radio waves. Beepers were mostly used by professionals such as doctors who had to be contacted immediately but today they are available to anyone who is willing to purchase it. The prices are very reasonable. Pagers help us contact people with ease and we don't even have to talk to them; we just give them our number. Parents don't have to scream their lungs out to contact their kids who walked down the block to meet their friends. Therefore pagers have also helped eliminate noise pollution. Pagers help business men contact their clients. Imagine your toilet flooding and the whole house filling with water. If pagers did not exist you would have to go looking for your plumber half way across the world. Let's think about extra marital affairs pagers have help these relationships full of passion and forbidden love in so many ways. First of all you put your pager on vibration and know one even knows you got paged. Then all you have to do is use some kind of numerical code and bam! You have yourself a secret meeting!
Even better than pagers are cellular telephones. Cellular telephones are movable telephone units. No wires, no big batteries just a small little cordless appliance you can fit in your pocket or purse. The first cellular phone went in operation in 1983 in the United States. As the years have passed the portable phones have become smaller and are much more complex. First of all you can call anywhere in the world at any time you please. Some suppliers even offer week ends free. Now what's better than that? A cell phone is an adult's toy. After permitting us to contact whomever we want any time we want, we can use it to receive messages, change the ring tone, transfer our calls to it most of them even have a calculator installed in it. Imagine lying to your mother about going to a party and then she calls and hears the loud music. Ha! And they say the previous generations had it bad. Or imagine skipping school thinking that the administration will not be able to contact your parents since their not at home or at work. Nope that does not work anymore they could just call the cell. Then your parents are going to be more angry because they were wasting prepaid minutes talking to your principle. Let's face it, the cell phone permits parents to keep more in touch to what their children are doing. Ever lose your friend on St. Catherine street? Yup, the perfect solution is purchasing in a cell phone. All you have to do is call your friend and find out where they are. In the previous years if you lost your friend it was just plain tough! Therefore the cellular telephone is the perfect example of one the twentieth century telecommunication changes.
Last but definitely not least is the Internet. The Internet is the network of all networks. It is an international linking service of thousands of businesses, universities and research organizations with million of individual users. In the 1970 the Internet was initially a military network called ARPANET ( Advanced Research Projects Agency Networks) which was a part of the department of defense. In the late 1970's universities and companies doing defense related research were given access the internet. In the 1980's practically all businesses and universities had access and finally in 1993 internet was provided for individual use. All this evolution happened in the Twentieth century. Who would have ever thought they would hear the words "you've got mail"? Using the know widely known Internet we could contact anyone we want. The Internet is beneficial for everyone. First and foremost we could purchase things off the Internet without even having to leave the comfort of your own home. Therefore businesses benefit from the arrival of the Internet. Students don't have to get writer's cramp trying to copy their friend's homework the morning before it's due because now their friend can just e-mail it to them the night before. You could also easily meet new people from different countries on the Internet. This permits us to learn more about different cultures and customs which enriches our knowledge. Ever wished you could contact a school advisor or ask your teacher a question right before you do his homework? Well with the luxury of the Internet you can. You could e-mail your teacher and ask him if what you're doing is right. Therefore the Internet helps student's academic life and prevents them from making useless mistakes. In an even brighter note, imagine being a day to day stock market player. By using the Internet these people become richer and richer by minute.
Telecommunications are the greatest change in the twentieth century because of how they are constantly changing for the better. For the better in the sense that telecommunications facilitate our lives. Imagine how simple it would have been if during the war the woman could have called their husbands on the cell phone to see how they are. Telecommunications have changed our lives drastically. We have the abilities to reach anyone, anywhere and anytime we please just by picking up a phone or turning on a computer.
They have helped our economy for the better in the sense that we could purchase objects off the Internet, the cellular phones, pagers and the bills to all the suppliers all help increase the economic state. Telecommunications have also helped us as individuals. They have increased our knowledge. It also permits us to keep in touch with most important thing in the world: our family. If you just sit back and think about it it's something hard to grasp. I suspect that in the future telecommunications are going to evolve even faster with all the up to date materials. Cellular phones and pagers are probably going to become even smaller and provide us with greater services. Regular telephones will probably pick up for us and tell us who it is. Using the Internet we'd probably be able to contact other planets and make friends with them. So as I sit here e-mailing my cousin, talking on my cell phone while being paged all I think of is when it comes to telecommunications in the future, expect the unexpected.
Today, skirts are too short and skyscrapers are too high. No household is complete without four or five radios, two or three television sets, and a computer. Both parents work outside of the home and their 2.4 children attend school where - one hopes - another massacre will not occur. That is our society today, quite different from a typical community at the turn of the century...
The twentieth century is one that has seen an unprecedented number of changes. And so we, as a society, are forced to ask ourselves as the year 2000 fast approaches, what was the biggest change? What exactly is it that moved everything from illegitimacy, to divorce, to student test scores, to violent crimes, in the wrong direction? The answer can be found in the decrease in the influence of religion...
From the early 1900's up until the 1950's, religion was of the utmost importance to most citizens around the world. In the first half of the century, the man provided for his family, the woman nurtured the children and their salvation was their religion - just as it had been their parents salvation. Religion offered hope ( by promising a better after-life if you were a "good" person in this life ) where none seemed to exist to those living in impoverished cities and surviving in seemingly unbearable conditions. Some of the world remained untouched by the industrial revolution, and religion thrived in the small, rural communities. Communication was still in its infancy ( the radio and newspaper being the only forms of mass media available to the average person ), and religion permeated the isolated homes. In some countries, religion was allowed to intervene outside their place of worship. Religious leaders would also be responsible for various public services such as education and charity ( Quebec, for example ). It was a time when man trusted its country's leaders and religious leaders, knowing no better.
Today, only 6% - 10% of all those who inhabit the United States ( the most influential country in the world ) are " highly spiritually committed ". Less than forty percent of Canadians attend Church / Synagogue once a week. Other religions ( Hindu, Sikh, and so on ) are faring little better. Collective attendance level in Canada came in at about 35% in the mid- 50's and dipped to just under 15% in the 1970's - the numbers have not risen. There has been an obvious exodus from places of worship since the 1960's, the same holy places that used to hold such an important place in the lives of men and women around the world. And, as social and moral standards continue to plummet, society has started to ask why. Why have the people lost their faith? The answer lies with the " Baby Boom " generation.
In the 1960's, religious or not, many of those in the boomer generation grew weary of the Vietnam War and had a " fundamental feeling that it was wrong ". Many young Americans lost faith in their country's moral superiority when they saw the napalm-scarred faces of the children on television and when they heard about "body-counts ". Not only did the baby boomers lose confidence in their country but felt some distance from almost every institution, including organized religion.
The gender revolution of the sixties was another blow to religion. Events coalesced early in the 1960's to give shape to a broadly based woman's movement ( Betty Friedans' The Feminine Mystique and the pill ). The Catholic church ( one of the most influential religions of the time ), being patriarchal, supported the time-honored tradition that women should home to care for the family and condemned divorce, premarital sex and most forms of birth control. The pill freed women from their biological shackles. Suddenly women could partake more freely in casual sex, and were given the opportunity to make career advancements without having to worry about pregnancy. For many Catholic women, the pill or its equivalent was their first significant rebellion against the church, and it meant that their attitude toward the authority of the church on other issues would never be quite the same again.
Boomers were also born in a time of considerable affluence and almost limitless expectations. The 1950's and 60's were decades of economic growth and widespread optimism ; employment was up, inflation was low, more Americans owned their homes than ever before and the country would put a man on the moon in less than a decade. In short, the American dream was thriving. The boomers had hopes for a happy and prosperous future; they did not need to take comfort in the security of organized religion ( and its promise of after-life ). The optimistic Baby Boom generation no longer needed to believe that an invisible, higher power would "save them," whereas so many before the sixties viewed religion as a much-needed salvation from the horrors of their daily lives. The affluence of the boomers alleviated the need for hope that religion had traditionally provided.
The boomer generation is the most educated generation in American history. Schools during the 1960's and 1970's exposed students to a wide variety of ideas and influences. Before the sixties, education was a luxury. This lack of scholarship and knowledge forced many people to follow " tradition ", meaning, if your parents went to church you would simply go to church because you did not know any different. Education broadened the average persons' horizons. Empowered by knowledge, people began to question rather than simply follow in the footsteps of their ancestors. Also, the normal person began exploring science in school. Explanations existed for seemingly all the mysteries of life, including human creation ( the Darwinian theory of evolution ). Suddenly, just believing wasn't enough for a modern society.
The world's entry into the information age in 1965 had the same effect on people as education. However, not only did the television expand the average persons' horizons but it became the average boomers' major source of information, exceeding that of books, newspapers, teachers, religious leaders, perhaps supplanting the family itself. By the time the average boomer had reached sixteen years of age, television had captured an estimated 12,000 to 15,000 hours of his or her time. Therefore, not only did the boomers' world expand but the opportunity for family morals and values to influence the boomers was fading quickly.
Finally, even the church itself relaxed in the Sixties. It was Pope John, an idealistic and compassionate leader, that laid the groundwork for drastic change in 1958, but, ultimately, it was Pope Paul that built the bridge between the contemporary world and the church. By December 8th, 1965, the council of the Vatican church had enacted a total of 16 texts - 4 constitutions, 9 decrees, and 3 declarations. Sacred texts, that had been in existence for centuries, had suddenly been " modernized " - much to the dismay and disgust of many Catholic followers. The church had taken away many of its mysteries, and now laid bare, was left for dead by many.
Whether it be distrust, divorce, or simple disbelief in the existence of God, most baby boomers have long-since strayed from their place of worship. Because the boomers are not religious, its reasonable to assume their children will not follow a religion and the trend will continue. Perhaps by the year 2050 religion will have gone the way of the dinosaurs. But it's not so much the fact that so many have lost their faith that is frightening but more the repercussions that the disappearance of religion entails...
Yet, of course, the downfall of religion has incurred many positive changes. Homosexuality is now ( more or less ) accepted. Bad marriages can end in divorce. A young woman can enjoy the luxury of choice of either having the baby or having an abortion. Premarital sex is acceptable. People can enjoy a higher standard of living. Music and movies are allocated artistic license and freedom of expression, even if that includes sex, vulgar language and violence. Women can show off a little leg. The diminishing influence of religion allows us to live in a more open and permissive society - "if it feels good do it". We have come a long way, Baby, since 1901. But, in 1999, we have somehow forgotten the "so long as you don't hurt anyone".
Our society is desperately lacking a moral code. For a thousand years, societies have looked to religious books ( the Bible, the Koran, etc. ) for community, ritual, and moral order. Modern society has chosen to reject religious guidance and we are now in a desperate search for a spiritual agreement. Our world is spiritually anorexic and symptoms are beginning to manifest themselves; the Colorado shootings, the war in Kosovo, etc. The biggest change of the twentieth century has created the biggest problem for the next. How to make people behave well without the fear - or love - of God?...