By now it is a cliche to hear the right talking about the "lessons of WWII". They are usually talking about how appeasing bullys mearly makes them more aggressive. I have heard this applied to the situation in Georgia recently. I wonder why we don't hear more about the lessons of WWI though. The tangled alliances in Europe that took a small conflict between Serbia and the Austro-Hungarian empire and quickly blew up into a world wide conflict. When I hear the neo cons talking about adding Georgia or the Ukrain to NATO this is what pops into my head. If Georgia had joined Nato this last Winter as they wished would they have felt even more secure to crack down on Ossetia because they knew they could call on their allies to counter Russia? Would that have kept Russia from sending tanks over the border? It not then would a full scale shooting war have erupted in Europe?

I like your post-

However, I don't think WWI part two would have happend.

First, the "domino theory" for WWI is sort of a simplification, there were many other factors leading up to 1914 than just alliances. For example, the French were still very sore at Germany due to the outcome of the Franco-Prussian war. My point is that honoring alliances in WWI may have been more about each countries ambitions and self interests than anything else.

Second, alliances often don't amount to much if the countries involved don't see a benefit to honoring such alliances ie. France and UKs failure to come to Poland's aid in Sept of 1939. Sure, they declared war on Germany but they did nothing to help Poland. They continued to do nothing until their own interests became challenged in 1940.

My question would be Ukraine and Georgia be the next West Germany?

I think it is more likely that we find ourselves in another Cold War rather than another WWI

Time will tell but as far as WWI goes, I think that (as with WWII) it was a unique instance that most likely will not be repeated. For one reason, World Wars are an anachronism, a relic, small guerilla wars from here on out.

You make some good points but I think you actually back up my main point. If, as you suggest, states don't honor alliances that don't benefit them then we would have seen Georgia crushed by Russia while it's NATO allies sat on the sidelines. I don't think NATO could survive such an embarassment. So if we followed McCains suggestions we would very likely have destroyed the unity and usefulness of NATO.

Humm.. I'm not sure I get the last part of your argument, could you explain a little further? Maybe in NATOs case, avoiding embarassment does benifit them. Then my suggestion holds true. But again, I may be missunderstanding your argument

It was unintended

What I mean is that NATO is only relevant if it's members believe it their allies will actually come to their aid. If we add new members knowing we will not come to their aid if Russia attacks them then we risk the dissolution of the alliance. All it would take is one NATO nation to be attacked by Russia with no military response from the alliance and NATO will lose all credibility.

Okay I see. Good point. I guess that is how it always is with alliances. The question is, will Russia call NATO's bluff. I say bluff because I'm afraid NATO has lost some creadibility. In the cold war the Soviets knew there would be a response, so they never dared call our bluff. On one hand I don't think NATO takes Russia as seriously as they did the USSR and I also think that many of the core nations of NATO have gone a bit soft USA included.

On one hand I don't think NATO takes Russia as seriously as they did the USSR and I also think that many of the core nations of NATO have gone a bit soft USA included.

There are good reasons for that. Since the Berlin Wall fell. Georgia is the first country that Russia has even threatened with military force, so it could hardly be compared to the expasionism of the Soviet Union.

This administration alone has invaded 2 countries (3 if you include Somalia), overthrown 2 governments and backed one failed coup.

Thus the moral authority of the US is in the gutter.

Kast but not least, the US is headed for economic disaster while Russia is in ascendancy.

We've been supposedly "headed for economic disaster" since I was in grade school. We are going t be just fine, but we have to keep the pressure on those that may challenge us (direct challengers like Russia and China, and indirect challengers like AQ and Hugo (your failed coup, hopefully more success in the future) as a dominant power. I think moral authority is a red haring, as long as we are a dominant superpower we will be hated and challenged it is just human nature and a natural law of competition. When have we ever had moral authority? WWII? Did it change after Korea? Vietnam? Or has our low moral authority just a result of GWB? No country is a moral authority nor is any nation above doing nasty things in their own self interest, it is just a reality of human nature.