Tomorrow is Armistice Day. The First World War and its origins never ceases to captivate my interest. Years ago, I spotted a then-girlfriend's well-illustrated college textbook on Western European Civilization history from the Renaissance to present, and I read that whole thing over the course of a few days (it was a 101 class). With that perspective in mind, it seemed obvious that the First World War was the culmination, the butcher's bill, if you will, of 500 years of one-upsmanship and the great game of balanced power, et al, not to mention the pent up, hard-wired frustrations over long-term occupied lands, religious furor, etc.
If you think of the resulting vacuum called the Dark Ages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it isn't a surprise that the 20th century, after the balloon went up in August 1914, has been so bloody and full of macro changes after the vacuum of the fall of so many empires that had been around for 500 years or more. The Hapsburg monarchy that sent Columbus to the New World and sponsored Mozart? Gone. The Hohenzollern monarchy (Frederich the Great) that sent Baron Von Steuben to General Washington, gone. The Romanovs (Peter the Great, Catherine the Great), gone. The Ottoman Empire ("the Turks are at the Gate!"), gone (the repercussions of THAT are massive and all around us). The British Empire? It's back broken forever. The repercussions of that brinksmanship getting away from them in the summer of 1914 haven't ended.
I grabbed this from an article today on realclearhistory today. Just a snippet of a great article about misconceptions about the First World War.
The killing of Franz Ferdinand was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back
Wrong, says Christopher Clark
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a kind of 9/11 moment for the Austrian leadership. It altered their politics and produced a completely unbroken consensus in favour of war. Prior to the killing, records show that the Austrians were focusing on diplomatic solutions to the Balkans crisis, but after the assassination everything changed.
The archduke was not a popular man in Austria but nonetheless the fact that he was killed upset people hugely. This, after all, was also an attack on the monarchy and the Habsburg state, so it caused an immense shock. At the same time, his dying words to his wife about the couple’s children generated a lot of sympathy for him.
Ironically, Franz Ferdinand was one of the most outspoken exponents of peace in the Balkans and he was planning to fire Conrad von Hötzendorf, the hawkish chief of the general staff. By killing the archduke, the murderers removed one of the best opportunities for peace, and kept in power the most influential exponent of war.
Some people argue that war was on the cards anyway but this is based on an overly deterministic view of the alliance system that operated in Europe at the time. It was far more wobbly and open-ended than we tend to think today. Levels of distrust within the alliances were very high and we know that, for example, in the summer of 1914 the British were toying with the idea of dropping Russia and seeking an understanding with Berlin. So, had Europe managed to survive those months, the Entente may well have drifted apart and the outcome could have been very different.
If you think of the resulting vacuum called the Dark Ages after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, it isn't a surprise that the 20th century, after the balloon went up in August 1914, has been so bloody and full of macro changes after the vacuum of the fall of so many empires that had been around for 500 years or more. The Hapsburg monarchy that sent Columbus to the New World and sponsored Mozart? Gone. The Hohenzollern monarchy (Frederich the Great) that sent Baron Von Steuben to General Washington, gone. The Romanovs (Peter the Great, Catherine the Great), gone. The Ottoman Empire ("the Turks are at the Gate!"), gone (the repercussions of THAT are massive and all around us). The British Empire? It's back broken forever. The repercussions of that brinksmanship getting away from them in the summer of 1914 haven't ended.
I grabbed this from an article today on realclearhistory today. Just a snippet of a great article about misconceptions about the First World War.
The killing of Franz Ferdinand was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back
Wrong, says Christopher Clark
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was a kind of 9/11 moment for the Austrian leadership. It altered their politics and produced a completely unbroken consensus in favour of war. Prior to the killing, records show that the Austrians were focusing on diplomatic solutions to the Balkans crisis, but after the assassination everything changed.
The archduke was not a popular man in Austria but nonetheless the fact that he was killed upset people hugely. This, after all, was also an attack on the monarchy and the Habsburg state, so it caused an immense shock. At the same time, his dying words to his wife about the couple’s children generated a lot of sympathy for him.
Ironically, Franz Ferdinand was one of the most outspoken exponents of peace in the Balkans and he was planning to fire Conrad von Hötzendorf, the hawkish chief of the general staff. By killing the archduke, the murderers removed one of the best opportunities for peace, and kept in power the most influential exponent of war.
Some people argue that war was on the cards anyway but this is based on an overly deterministic view of the alliance system that operated in Europe at the time. It was far more wobbly and open-ended than we tend to think today. Levels of distrust within the alliances were very high and we know that, for example, in the summer of 1914 the British were toying with the idea of dropping Russia and seeking an understanding with Berlin. So, had Europe managed to survive those months, the Entente may well have drifted apart and the outcome could have been very different.
