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 ...
Never heard of that term, and I am a historian by profession.
Oh, and the Deutschlandlied‘s words were an exhortation, yes, to estimate the whole country, not just the numerous principalities and kingdoms created by the Congress of Vienna which constituted the German Confederation.
Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben, the author, wanted a German republic in the style of France, with popular sovereignty in the British-American mold.
That was not going well with the neo absolutist princes and princelings, so Hoffmann went into exile. In the German Revolution of 1848/9, at last a big step was done towards democratic rights.
Mark Twain wrote a scathing critique of America’s occupation of the Philippines.
saw it
Robespierre ruled only parts of France, and for only a brief period. He was a cruel fanatic, a revolutionary who only destroyed.
Unlike Napoleon, Robespierre was not a builder or innovator, and he had none of Napoleon's magnanimity to balance his destructive side.
That is true.
Robespierre was a kind of Khomeini of his era: a bloodthirsty „theocrat“ who could destroy but was unable to build, unable to compromise.
That was going to be his undoing.
No WW-I would probably have also prevented rise of Nazis and WW-II as it eventually unfolded. The next great conflict would more likely have been between Soviets and western Europe, and as that developed (possibly around 1950), quite plausible that an isolationist America under perpetual Republican rule would have stayed out. Depression of 1930s possibly just a recession.
Difficult to guess the future of Japan without European allies in 1930s, possibly a slower expansion or none at all. Possibly a communist China by 1950, but more in orbit of Soviets? Also likely a slower evolution of post-colonial world. Islam considerably less militant? Decline of traditional culture on a slower pace?
Nuclear weapons? No great rush to develop, possibly not invented at all.
Nobody can say, unless God runs an alternate earth somewhere to find out. An important point, none of us would be alive, different histories of our ancestors, different fates, different offspring. People who were alive probably turning out differently. Churchill not a famous leader, FDR a minor figure, Stalin alive into 1960s? and hitler never heard of. Beatles? Rolling Stones? Probably not. We cannot really guess what might have replaced all that, and iconic events of more recent years, 9-11 for example, Obama, Biden, very unlikely figures without the collapse of traditional culture and religion.
True, but classical liberalism never attained national power in Germany until after WW II. Bismark famously coopted German liberals by adopting the first national pension scheme in the late 1880s, a major step toward the modern welfare state.
The war was avoidable until it wasn’t. Then the output of WW1 guaranteed WW2. WW1 still used social status as the determinant of military leadership. Some countries lost almost 20% of their population. Western countries lost 3-5% and that was almost an entire generation of men. Then they did it again 25 years later. Any intelligence and bravery was destroyed over 2 generation in Western Europe and was even more destructive to Russia, Eastern Europe …
The US killed 2% of its population during the civil war. The number maimed was unmeasurable. Yet the immigration continued during that time so it’s hard to see the impact just looking at population numbers. At least with the American civil war we didn’t have the entire officer corp lead by pampered dukes, barons … like Europe did in WW1. They literally slowed marched, Calvary charges (starting at a slow walk)using swords /lances against machine guns, mortars and artillery.
“The British post-war division of the former Ottoman Empire’s Middle Eastern possessions is what directly lead to our modern problems in that region, of course.”
Yup—WW I was a disaster on so many levels—it seems like everybody was worse off after it than before it—if not immediately—then soon enough with another war on the horizon.
Nobody seemed smart enough to figure out the second and third order effects...
“Interwar years” sometimes pops up in recent TV documentaries. “Halftime” is my brother’s joke.
Good post.
No WWI would have probably kept alive a “golden age” for much of the world for many decades—perhaps lasting until today—with much less war related technology and much weaker central governments.
But—beyond that—the killing and maiming of an incredible number of young men could have been avoided.
You cannot put a value on that—it is priceless.
True. As Axel Oxenstjerna, the Swedish chancellor in the 17th century, said, there would be amazement if it were known how little wisdom were among the rulers of the earth.
The Great War was no exception.
Wilhelm II was an advocate of German colonialism. Bismark’s record was mixed.
Tragically, this was the fad of the day.
The German national anthem in 1914 was Heil dir im Siegerkranz, an ode to the Kaiser sung to the same tune as God Save the King.
The piece you're thinking of, the Deutschlandlied, was written in the 1840's as a plea for Germans to put national unification above everything else.
Yes…indeed they were priceless.
The Lord rest them all🙏🏻 In my heart they shall live forevermore, until it will stop one day, and, His grace permitting, we shall all be united on the other side of Heaven.
Sorry, but I have to go to bed now. It’s been a fine debate, but it’s late now.
Looking forward to reading all of you soon.
The Deutschlandlied was the popular if unofficial anthem of Germany for decades from the 1840s on. As a Prussian concoction, Heil dir im Siegerkranz was never especially favored by the German public and was never the official German imperial anthem.
The century between the final defeat of Napoleon and the beginning of the Great War escalation was a largely peaceful period marred by increasingly belligerent episodes of the growing "Prussianism".
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.