WATCH: Unit 7 Overview – Global Conflict

Do me a favor. Close your eyes and imagine World  War I and World War II. What comes to mind? Tanks,   planes, bombs, soldiers in green and grey shooting  at each other in the name of democracy or fascism?   Two all-out wars in which the whole world  dedicated itself to the task of destruction?   You're not wrong. But there's more to this story.  Militant ideologies like nationalism and fascism   get a lot of attention and narratives about the  world wars, and rightly so. These were history's   first "total wars"—wars in which the entire engine  of society is devoted to the task of making war.   But there is another ideology that we rarely  associate with this period from 1914 to 1945:   Pacifism. Certainly, Pacifism didn't win the day.  However, people on all sides of these conflicts   argued against war, and their stories can also  tell us about historical trends in this era of   violent conflict. So, while this unit will  highlight war leader figures like Kaiser   Wilhelm and Winston Churchill, for this video, we're  going to focus on a woman named Janette Rankin.   Unless you're from Rankin's home state of  Montana, that name might not ring a bell.   But this local hero has great national  significance, so let's ring that bell now.  Jeanette Rankin was the first woman to serve in  the United States Congress and the only woman   Montana has ever elected to congress. In fact, she  was elected in 1916, four years before women even   won the right to vote in national elections. And  finally, she was the only U.S. congressperson to vote   against American entry into both world wars. Her  very first vote in Congress, on April 6, 1917, was   her vote against U.S. involvement in World War I.  Along with about 50 other congressional members,   Rankin refused to give her consent. She said, "I want  to support my country, but I cannot vote for war."   Faithful to her principles, she insisted, "We cannot  settle disputes by eliminating human beings."   Most leaders of the 20th century seem  to have been of a very different mind.   But, as Jeannette Rankin and predicted, the two world  wars would raise as many questions as they solved. Hi, I'm Rachel Hansen, and this is Unit  7: Global Conflict 1900 to the Present.   In the summer of 1914, the great  industrialized empires of the world   began a mighty struggle on a global scale  in what some called "the war to end all wars."   Pacifists like Jeanette Rankin doubted that  claim. And sure enough, 20 years after the end   of the first war, a second, even more devastating  conflict erupted. In this unit, we'll ask: Why did   the nations of the world engage in these global  conflicts? Our story starts in May 1914, a month in   which the transformations of the long 19th century  still seemed to offer a world of promise for some.   Political revolutions had created new nations and  democratic governments in some parts of the world.   The Industrial Revolution promised efficient  production, cheaper goods, and faster communication   and travel. Yet, not everyone shared in these  promises, and from 1914 to 1918, all the   promise of the long 19th century collapsed into  global conflict. This war lasted four long years   and cost millions of lives. It revealed a broken  global system. And even its conclusion in 1918   didn't solve the problems of that system. Instead,  by the 1930s, these tensions would send the   sons and grandsons of those who had fought in the  First World War into the battles of the Second. And   you didn't have to be a soldier to lose your life. Both wars witnessed horrific atrocities against   civilian populations. In this unit, you'll  seek out the causes of global conflicts.   How did the long 19th century set the  stage for the First World War? And how   did the failures of the interwar years lead  the world back into war? And finally, you'll ask:   did these two wars solve anything? And  what problems did they leave unsolved? Let's look at these questions through  our themes. In the last unit, you explored   how the dual revolutions in politics and  industrialization created the new imperialism.   In this unit, you'll see how competition among  empires helped produce an era of global war.  You see, there's only so much land on Earth. And as  imperialist nations began expanding to new regions   of Africa, Asia, and the Pacific, they eventually  came into competition over colonies and resources.   Militant nationalism helped motivate  support for imperial competition.   Soon, complicated alliance systems emerged, meant to  balance nations against each other and ensure each   country's security. Sadly, this careful balancing  act collapsed like a house of cards in 1914.   Meanwhile, the industrialization of the long  19th century produced incredibly deadly   weaponry that left the generation of men dead.  Advances in communications and transportation   allowed the rapid deployment of huge numbers of  soldiers and weapons all around the globe. These   technological trends only intensified during the  Second World War. New technologies, unfortunately,   made mass murder possible on a new scale. World War  I killed over 20 million soldiers and civilians.  World War II killed over 70 million humans. Many  of these were victims of social trends like racism,   anti-semitism, and eugenics that were used to  justify atrocities by one group against others.   These were also "total" wars. That meant that  the entire economic engines of the warring   nations were turned to the war effort—and often  to atrocities against civilians. It also meant that   factories, workers, infrastructure, and  civilians became valid targets for bombs.   As a result, the world wars devastated the  economies of major world powers and their   colonies, as well as many neutral nations. After  the First World War, governments were eager to   avoid repeating the death and destruction. But  in the interwar period between 1919 and 1939,   these efforts failed. The internationalism of  the League of Nations faltered in the face of   extreme nationalist ideologies like fascism.  After 1945 and the end of the Second World   War, governments once again looked for ways  to prevent conflict. The victorious powers   created the United Nations and attempted to  succeed where the League of Nations had failed. Where does Jeanette Rankin fit into  this? After voting against American   entry into the First World War, she lost  her congressional seat in the next election.   But as fate would have it, she won another  term in Congress in the 1940 election,  just as the United States was debating  whether it should enter the Second World War.   In 1941, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor united  the nation and ended almost all opposition to war.   But Rankin held firm in her belief that "There can  be no compromise with war; it cannot be reformed or   controlled; cannot be disciplined into decency  or codified into common sense; for war is the   slaughter of human beings, temporarily regarded  as enemies, on as large a scale as possible."   This time she was the only member of congress  to vote against war. You can see her here,   in a phone booth, taking shelter from  a mob of angry reporters after casting   her vote. It ended her political career—as  she knew it would. She was widely condemned.   However, many also praised Rankin—if not for her  vote, than for the courage of her convictions.   Asked years later if she ever regretted her  decision, Rankin responded: "Never. If you're against   war, you're against war regardless of what happens.  It's a wrong method of trying to settle a dispute."   Congresswoman Rankin insisted that victory  in war is impossible. She claimed that, "You can   no more win a war than win an earthquake." And  she protested war for the rest of her long life.   But many people still see the Second World War  at least as a just war—one that the United States   did not ask for, and one that pitted democracies  against authoritarian, and even murderous states.   What do you think? Do you agree with Rankin?  Or are there conditions that justify war?   The Allied powers were victorious  at the end of both wars.   And they imposed their will on their defeated  foes. But did their victory bring peace? Did it   stop future atrocities? You'll consider those  questions in this unit and the two that follow.