Today, November 11, 2018, marks the centennial of the cessation of World War I. In the early hours of November 11, 1918 (just after 5 A.M.) the warring nations signed an armistice agreement. Immediately thereafter, the front line generals were told of the agreement via radio or telephone. The fighting was to stop at 11 A.M.

They were so-informed, but many of the units (on both sides) kept on fighting and killing each other past the 11 A.M. agreement.

For what? There was nothing to be gained by continuing the slaughter. A few feet of ground forward or backwards was negated by the terms set forth in the armistice. Yet records show that on this day, 100 years ago, 2,738 men were killed for no cause except killing for killing’s sake.

WWI was at that time called the “war to end all wars.” Later, WWI was called by many the “war that caused WWII.” The first phrase was based on hopeful expectations. The second phrase was based on hindsight.

Even today, people disagree if the harsh terms imposed on Germany by the victorious allies in the armistice accords had anything to do with the rise of Hitler and WWII. This writer believes that the armistice was a major contributing factor (but not the only one).

Compare the post WWI armistice terms to the post WWII terms. The former sought to punish the loser and debilitate Germany’s economy and social structure. The latter, learning from the past, sought to resurrect the losers (Japan, Germany, and Italy).

But the WWII victors also aimed to restructure the political and social fabric of these countries. They did not want a replay of the aftermaths of the Great War (WWI).

The resurrection and reconstitution of a defeated Japan by the United States is a phenomenal story. Granted, the Japanese emperor (after two atomic explosions) directed the citizens to admit and accept defeat, and the emperor’s directives were followed to the hilt. Germany was prostrate, its people starving. It had no other choice.

Still, America knew an ongoing practice of repressing and punishing its defeated foes would lead to these foes eventually becoming formidable (and even more resentful) foes in the future. We reconstructed these nations. Today, they are democracies and our close allies.

WWI introduced weapons that changed the nature of how war was conducted. Tanks, aerial bombing, and sometimes the use of gas changed the warfare landscape. It also reinforced the common sense notion that once the enemy is defeated, kiss that enemy, so to speak. If you do not and also do not completely irradiate your enemy, eventually, that enemy will irradiate you … and dispense with the kisses.

We did not take this lesson-learned experience into Iraq War II. We invaded with great success, dismantled the country’s political, financial, and social infrastructures, and did not even possess the hindsight/foresight to have plans in place to replace the many vacuums we created.

WWI and WWII: Their political postscripts, as well as that of Iraq II, should have taught America’s leaders a simple lesson: Defeating the enemy is essential in any war. But post-war victory is hollow if the victor does not insure the defeated party no longer has the motivation to strike back.

WWII is a model for how to accept and practice victory. WWI is not.

- • •

Uyless Black is a Hayden resident and a Vietnam veteran who writes regularly for The Press.