Posted on 09/01/2024 9:07:12 AM PDT by hardspunned
The assassination of Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Bosnian Serb Gavrilo Princip in late June 1914 had one of the strongest ripple effects in modern history, setting off a series of war declarations across Europe and plunging the world into one of its deadliest conflicts.
World War I, however, didn’t officially begin until a month after Ferdinand’s assassination, and though tensions were high, the fight wasn’t inevitable, according to Ronald Spector, professor of history and international affairs.
George Washington Today sat down with Dr. Spector to discuss the assassination, the path to war and the new Europe it created.
Q: What was the mood in Europe in the summer of 1914, right around the time of the assassination? A: At the time, things actually seemed to be getting better. The Moroccan Crisis had been settled, the French and Germans had concluded an agreement about the Rhine River, and at the time of the assassination the German Navy was hosting the British Navy at Kiel Week, which is a huge bash with yacht and boat races. Of course, there were certain structural causes present, including the rise of nationalism in the Balkans, the alliance systems and the long-term arms race in naval and land weapons. But these things were in the background. It didn’t seem, in the summer of 1914, that there was much worry about a global war. The French and British newspapers, even for several weeks after the assassination, referred to it as “the Balkan crisis.” They didn’t think this would be a worldwide conflict.
(Excerpt) Read more at gwtoday.gwu.edu ...
That's nonsensical and provably false.
Russia or rather the Tsardom of all the Russias, had already been "set up" by 1791 with the final partition of the Polish-lithuanian commonwealth.
WW2 was fomented to create Israel (think Balfour Declaration, give from the Crown to Lord Rothschild).
Again, provably nonsensical - the balfour declaration was from 1917. Israel was already setup in many ways after WWI.
Britain in 1847 allied with the French empire and the Ottomans to fight the Tsardom of Russias and prevent the dismemberment of the Ottomans.
The British didn’t want to destroy the Ottoman empire but rather to keep it in a zombie state so no one else would grab it and there would be no fighting over the carcass.
The Belgian excuse was partly an “excuse” - the British gov didn’t care. They were more worried about the German empire being a treat to British trade.
Additional though, the British citizens felt sympathy for “the plucky Belgians”
They split up the Ottoman empire as they wanted it
Why Clemenceau?
The French wanted to grab as much as they could (as they were the winners) - which is no different than what Germany did in 1871.
The Versailles treaty wasn’t the problem as much as allowing German radicals to create the “stab in the back theory” — Germany’s war leaders realised they were losing and surrendered while German troops were still outside Germany’s borders. This prevent the destruction of Germany as happened in 1945, but it confused the German people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.