Posted on 07/03/2008 5:12:48 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
One important anniversary in Europe’s political history passed unnoticed last week It was twenty-four years ago, on June 28, 1914, that the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austrian throne, was assassinated by a Serbian agitator at Sarajevo, Bosnia. We know now that this was the spark from which the European powder-barrel was exploded. In itself an isolated catastrophe, it led directly to the Great War.
In one respect, the state of the public mind abroad and in this country, during the weeks when the European tragedy was developing to its climax in the Summer of 1914, was such as to merit recalling it today – chiefly by way of contrast. Not until a full month after the Sarajevo murder did any one seem to predict a general war. This attitude resulted partly from confidence created by the peaceful international settlement of the Balkan War nearly a year before, partly from the recovery in financial markets, partly from incredulity as to a major conflict. Of the Sarajevo news, The London Economist remarked that “it had no appreciable effect on the European Stock Exchanges. When Austria declared war on Serbia, European cables predicted that the fighting “may be over in a month.”
This preliminary chapter to the outbreak of the Great War is remarkable in its contrast to the public’s attitude of today. Whereas in 1914 a “general European war” was commonly described as unthinkable, it is nowadays widely characterized as inevitable. Every incident in Central Europe, pointing to diplomatic collision, at once creates a war scare. The mind of statesmen is occupied with the chances of such a conflict and the necessity of preparing for it, as it certainly was not at the end of June, 1914. Doubtless this has resulted from the fact that a general European war became not merely a possibility but a certainty in 1914; also, from the rise of dictatorships, the altered alignment of several Governments, the political confusion and enmities left by the unhappy treaties at the end of the last war. But the contrast between the “war talk” of 1914 and that of 1938 is interesting in another and perhaps less discouraging respect. Wars which are expected and predicted are prepared for, and preparation is apt to render a sudden explosion such as that of twenty-four years ago less probable. Destructive wars of history have usually broken out when the preceding atmosphere was one of incredulity – a fact to which the wars of revolutionary France and our own Civil War were striking witness.
When you wish upon a star . . .
The NYT's mistake then, as now, is their apparent unwillingness or inability to consider the possibility that the "bad guys" don't think the same way about wars as we peace-loving Westerners do.
In this editorial, they seem to have thought that the likes of Hitler, Tojo, and Stalin would be deterred by the spectre of a "prepared" enemy. Silly in retrospect: there's no quicker way to get into trouble than by assuming your adversary thinks the same way you do.
The reality was that Hitler, et al, were in real preparations for war, and understood the difference between their efforts and those of Britain and France.
And they also understood the time factors involved -- Britain and France's preparations for war were probably a major factor in Hitler's decision to begin WWII when he did. IIRC, Hitler's original timetable called for war beginning in about 1946 -- but the German analysis showed that their optimal military advantage would be much sooner than that.
So ... what about today? Do we have any countries whose leaders may not be impressed or deterred by our current preparedness? I have to say "yes," Iran being the most obvious candidate, though I have my doubts about China's long-term stability as well.
There is one major difference though -- the difference that will most likely ensure that George W. Bush and Tony Blair will look good to later historians. They had their 1938 moment, and rather than "negotiating with the bad guys," as Chamberlain and Daladier did, Bush and Blair decided to do something about it.
The question now is not one of preparedness, but rather one of stamina.
The wars we're in now are probably the same sort of thing that would have taken place had the Allies dealt with Germany early on.
This is a very curious claim from the NYT in 1938.
Indeed, it's the opposite of the truth (not so unusual for the NYT, it seems).
In 1914, Europe's powers were in a 5-year arms race which had increased their military budgets 50%. All of Europe was seriously preparing for invasion by Germany.
In 1938, only Hitler's Germany was seriously preparing for war, though it should be said, the overall balance of military power did not yet appear in Germany's favor.
Several times prior to 1914, the German Kaiser had backed down from going to war over various international incidents.
By 1914, the Kaiser believed Germany was ready for war. More important, the German high command believed that their neighbors would soon catch up to Germany, and so by 1914, the German leadership believed, "it's now or never."
The murder of the Kaiser's only close friend, Austria's Archduke Ferdinand, was more than enough excuse to convince Wilhelm to do what he already intended.
I'm afraid I agree on both counts. The Iran situation especially looks like it could get very hot very fast - before the end of the year even. After reading a tiny bit of China's history in the first half of the twentieth century I will only say that if the past is any indicator their inertia may work in our favor.
The question now is not one of preparedness, but rather one of stamina.
What worries me is the American electorate. McCain does not strike me as the type to give us hard news in an inspiring manner, and I don't even want to think about an Obama administration attempting to deal with foreign threats.
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.