Turkey lost land after WWI, but soon got it back.
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 ...
WW I..WWII....Korea.....Vietnam....Iraq....Afghanistan....what do they have in common? All contrived by the deep state to make money....PERIOD!
in 1913 when they gave us the federal reserve banking system that requires borrowing money fro them to be paid back with interest.....
What’s a countries biggest expenditure?
its military!
When you use that military what spent on it increases dramatically.
Make sense now?
Need proof?
Scour YouTube keywording with the right search and you’ll see.
Specifically the military pilots who delivered unused supplies to fuel a war that soon ended and were sent to pickup the supplies that went unused believing that they were to be brought back home. NO, they were sent years beforehand to the next war front.
We’ve been getting played for far too long!
Personally, while I joined for what seemed like the right reasons to serve in the military and had the best of times doing so. now that I know regret ever having been part of playing their game.
WIKI
The Treaty of Sèvres imposed terms on the Ottoman Empire that were far more severe than those imposed on the German Empire by the Treaty of Versailles. France, Italy and Britain had secretly begun planning the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire as early as 1915. The open negotiations covered a period of more than 15 months, started at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, continued at the Conference of London of February 1920 and took definite shape only after the San Remo Conference in April 1920. The delay occurred because the powers could not come to an agreement, which, in turn, hinged on the outcome of the Turkish National Movement. The Treaty of Sèvres was never ratified, and after the Turkish War of Independence, most of the Treaty of Sèvres’s signatories signed and ratified the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 and 1924.
While the Treaty of Sèvres was still under discussion, the Turkish national movement under Mustafa Kemal Pasha split with the monarchy, based in Constantinople, and set up a Turkish Grand National Assembly in Ankara in April 1920. He demanded for the Turks to fight against the Greeks, who were trying to take the land that had been held by the Ottoman Empire and given to Greece in the treaty. That started the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922), which resulted in a Turkish victory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres
Turkey lost land after WWI, but soon got it back.
Regards,
Napoleon was exceedingly victorious. He changed the course of history.
He imposed the French Revolution's liberalism throughout Europe.
That included weakening the Catholic Church, imposing separation of church and state, emancipating Jews, and advancing civic nationalism (the idea that anyone born under French rule, including Africans in French colonies, was French).
He destroyed the Holy Roman Empire, enabling German states to break free of Austrian Hapsburg domination. Beethoven wrote his Emperor Concerto in honor of Napoleon. (Beethoven later lost his admiration when Napoleon turned out to fall short of liberal ideals.)
He destroyed the Spanish Empire. His defeat of Spain enabled many South American states to declare independence.
He introduced Europeans to Egyptian antiquities. During his Egyptian campaign, Napoleon brought scholars along with him, which was unheard of, and they discovered the Rosetta Stone.
Napoleon was not only a general, but a law giver. He supervised the drafting of the Napoleonic Code, which is still used in part of the world, including Louisiana.
And despite his defeat at Waterloo, Napoleon was a great general and military innovator. He mastered the use of mass armies of common conscripts. He understood the importance of supply lines and promoted discoveries in canned food, as he understood their military value.
Europe in 1780 was the "Ancien Regime" of Church and aristocracy. The French Revolution changed that in France. Napoleon spread the revolution throughout Europe. Metternich tried to put the genie back in the bottle, but Europeons were never the same after Napoleon.
I wouldn't character Wilson as manufacturing a fight with Germany. Germany did that all by itself. The U.S. was initially neutral at the onset of WW1 but a few things that Germany did ultimately changed that position.
(1) German unrestricted sub warfare sank passenger ships like RMS Lusitania and also neutral U.S. cargo ships.
(2) The German government's Zimmermann telegram to Mexico was intercepted by the U.S. It was a German proposal for a German-Mexico alliance should America join the war on the side of the Allies. It included promises of American territories/states to be ceded to Mexico should Germany win the war.
Yet the real reason for the Great War as it came to be called was that it was not realized just how long, brutal, and destructive a war it would be. Based on history, it was widely assumed by Germany in August 1914 that the war would be a short and successful affair ending in a negotiated peace, with her troops home before the end of the year.
Germany's military successes though fell short of victory but were too great to permit a negotiated end to the war. Germany also saw a prospect of victory almost until the end, in part because as in WW II, in WW I the German General Staff lacked a full appreciation of the decisive effects of America's entry into the war on the side of the Allies.
By the fall of 1918, Germany was starving due to the Allied blockade and masses of fresh American troops were poised to join in a decisive offensive into Germany itself. Mutinies, riots, and a revolution at home though forced the Kaiser to flee and brought a German surrender.
Besides, Imperial Japan had its eye on British and French colonies. Japan wanted to rule its sphere, which required cutting down the British and French.
Germany also tried to use Japan as an ally against the Soviet Union, but Japan declined. So it’s unlikely Japan would have been our ally against the Soviets.
Because Zhukov kicked Japan’s ass in the 1939 Battle of Khalkhin Gol. Probably the most significant battle of WWII that few know about, but had huge ramifications during and after WWII.
True. He did indeed modernize Europe in many ways.
Still, this came at the price of millions of war dead - French and non- French alike. France, Europe‘s most populous nation before Napoleon‘s time, never totally recovered its demographic and political supremacy, which it had held since the Thirty Years War.
Germany had won the return of Alsace-Lorraine in the France-Prussian War but still built a large army aimed at France.
What did France do to earn that hatred from the Germans?
(1) German unrestricted sub warfare sank passenger ships like RMS Lusitania and also neutral U.S. cargo ships.
Because Britain imposed a Naval Blockage on Germany. So US Ships couldn’t go to Germany. Yet the Brits expected the US to supply them, the U-Boats were a response to the British Naval Blockade, and the US should have told the Brits that we wouldn’t risk our ships to supply them, until they allowed US ships to also supply Germany. That’s what a real neutral would have done. But we were never really “neutral” were we?
Arch-Duke Ferdinand should have followed the wise advise given him and NOT go to Sarajevo in the first place.
> Napoleon was exceedingly victorious. He changed the course of history. <
I’ll grant you much of what you say. But he did it in the bloodiest way possible. Mixed in with his reformist ideas was a tyrant’s desire to rule all of Europe.
early Napoleon: Wise reformer and defender of France.
late Napoleon: Monster who brought misery to all of Europe.
Pity that he could not quit while he was ahead.
“Zimmermann telegram to Mexico was intercepted by the U.S”
I believe the British had the “tap” on German communications.
Not only were the Germans dumb for sending the telegram—but they added insult to injury by admitting to it after the fact.
If they had at least tried to claim it was a forgery they might have given an isolationist US an excuse not to enter the war.
Britain’s “alliances” with France and Russia started out as a way of resolving colonial disputes in Africa and Asia. It was an “entente” or understanding. Those difficulties resolved, Britain should have developed a similar entente with Germany. That didn’t happen. Britain doubled down and sank deeper into its alliances with France and Germany, and Germany was riding high and not very likely to be responsive to overtures that the British could have made.
Getting more into the details, a Serbian agent assassinated an Austrian Archduke and heir to the Austrian throne. Austria addressed an ultimatum to Serbia that would have crippled Serbia in different ways. My understanding is that the Serbs accepted most of ultimate, but rejected some of the more extreme items. This gave Austria an excuse to go to war with Serbia. Germany gave Austria a blank check that allowed and encouraged the Austrians to go to war.
As it was, the Austrians on their own couldn’t conquer Serbia. The harvests were coming and Austrian soldiers didn’t want to leave their farms. Austria was much weaker than it looked. Bearing that in mind, the Austrians should have accepted Serbia’s response to the ultimatum and used the influence in Serbian affairs that it gave them to uproot the conspiracy and either weaken Serbia or manipulate Serbia into friendlier ways. The Germans should have pressured Austria to accept the Serbian response. Russia and France should have recognized that the Serbs would have to pay a cost for the assassination and been more conciliatory with Austria. Then there would have been no war.
Berlin was afraid that France might start a war to get the lost provinces back.
Thus, Bismarck tried to keep France isolated in Europe. He knew that France would need a partner or two to fulfill this ambition. Bismarck knew that Germany could deal with any single aggressor - but as a team they would have the advantage.
WW1 as it happened was actually avoidable - however, *some* war or wars was inevitable in Europe at that time and the only questions were ‘who/where’ and ‘when’. More likely it would have been a regional war or a couple wars if there hadn’t been that web of interconnecting treaties added to leadership stupidity and the prevailing thought in Europe that “War Is Glorious,” a concept the US Civil War had begun the process of disabusing the US of. The sieges of Vicksburg and elsewhere presaged the trench warfare and industrialized warfare that would make an appearance in Europe.
If you check history, Europe sees wars more often than not and there hasn’t been a century since the Black Plague where there hasn’t been a major war there.
The problem is that German and Russian generals wanted war, and their governments weren’t going to stop them.
Permit me to add something to my post #134:
While we do disagree on Napoleon, your post #125 contained a lot of very interesting historical information. Thanks.
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.