World War I: Argumentative Analysis

World War I was a time of learning and knowledge improvement. However, much of the knowledge gained by the world’s leaders from this global conflict only served to increase the likelihood of the impending Second World War. One of the most important lessons learned from the first war is the fact that it instilled the importance of diplomacy over force (Allen 2014). Additionally, the leaders learned that war is unpredictable (Allen 2014). In theory, this would allow them to better prepare for future conflict. However, it also increased the likelihood of another world war because everyone was now preparing for the worst with a borderline paranoia. Better planning would lead to another conflict, which was, to many of the leaders, a second
chance at victory. Thus, the knowledge was a double edged sword.
Modern politicians speak of World War II only to enhance their own agendas and accuse their rivals of appeasement. However, there is an inherent difference between appeasement and diplomatic dialogue. Diplomacy is essential for preventing conflict, as seen in situations that require leaders to meet to prevent issues such as nuclear war and other threats. The concessions made could meet the accusations of mere appeasement. However, the key difference lies in the purpose: diplomatic dialogue is the key to safety, while appeasement is merely a battleground for further conflict.
Thus, the lessons of World War I, namely the benefit of diplomacy over armed conflict, are most appropriate when a nation is suffering direct threat from another. For example, diplomacy would have been essential during the Cold War, as armed conflict would have culminated in mutually assured destruction. However, the lessons of World War II are most often applied to modern situations. Armed conflict is essential for resolving issues such as terrorism and even impending invasion, as these cases allow little room for diplomacy. The key is the proper balance between the two.