100th Anniversary of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand...

[MichaelWinicki]

Of Austria (June 28th 1914)

No, it's not going to mean much to most of us.

I mean it happened a 100 years ago halfway around the world... so what's the big deal?

At the time, it was recognized as a tragedy, especially in Austria, but know one would have guessed that the assassination would be directly and indirectly affecting events 100 years later.

The Reader's Digest version of this is that Austria held Serbia (the country where the Archduke was murdered) responsible for the attack, and made demands on Serbia which they couldn't comply with. Austria declared war on Serbia.

Russia who was an ally of Serbia, declared war on Austria-Hungary.

Germany, who was an ally of Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and Russia.

And that's how WWI began. Countries began taking sides against one another over this one event. At the time WWI was considered to be the war to end all wars.

At the conclusion of the war, the allies (especially France) saw fit to punish Germany severely... maybe too severely.

You see the other "shoe" that dropped that helped trigger WWI was the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, which left France battered and seeking revenge, which would happen almost 50 years later.

As we now know there was a corporal in the German army during WWI, who was able to use the weakened state of post-war Germany to build a power-base in which to start WWII.

The results of WWII helped initiate the Cold War.

One of the things I find most fascinating is the change that occurred in mid-Europe and the middle-East due to the what happened in WWI...

Not only did WWI end the Austria-Hungary empire, it also ended that of the Ottoman's, which affected and is still affecting the Middle East.

So while June 28th may not mean much to most... It's certainly one of the most important dates in the history of the planet.

 

[CyberB0b]

I've always been fascinated with the amount of romanticism that was attached to war before WWI and by most accounts, it was one of the most gruesome with the trench warfare and what not.

 

[burmafrd]

I've always been fascinated with the amount of romanticism that was attached to war before WWI and by most accounts, it was one of the most gruesome with the trench warfare and what not.

One of the reasons that was so was because none of the countries involved had fought a real war in decades. Things like glory tend to get exaggerated to those that never saw real combat.

 

[burmafrd]

Of Austria (June 28th 1914)

No, it's not going to mean much to most of us.

I mean it happened a 100 years ago halfway around the world... so what's the big deal?

At the time, it was recognized as a tragedy, especially in Austria, but know one would have guessed that the assassination would be directly and indirectly affecting events 100 years later.

The Reader's Digest version of this is that Austria held Serbia (the country where the Archduke was murdered) responsible for the attack, and made demands on Serbia which they couldn't comply with. Austria declared war on Serbia.

Russia who was an ally of Serbia, declared war on Austria-Hungary.

Germany, who was an ally of Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and Russia.

And that's how WWI began. Countries began taking sides against one another over this one event. At the time WWI was considered to be the war to end all wars.

At the conclusion of the war, the allies (especially France) saw fit to punish Germany severely... maybe too severely.

You see the other "shoe" that dropped that helped trigger WWI was the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, which left France battered and seeking revenge, which would happen almost 50 years later.

As we now know there was a corporal in the German army during WWI, who was able to use the weakened state of post-war Germany to build a power-base in which to start WWII.

The results of WWII helped initiate the Cold War.

One of the things I find most fascinating is the change that occurred in mid-Europe and the middle-East due to the what happened in WWI...

Not only did WWI end the Austria-Hungary empire, it also ended that of the Ottoman's, which affected and is still affecting the Middle East.

So while June 28th may not mean much to most... It's certainly one of the most important dates in the history of the planet.

There were many reasons for that war and all those that started it are to blame; the stupidity and arrogance that France and England showed trying to blame Germany for it completely merely ensured another war in 20 years. Even to this day a lot of mediocre historians refuse to admit this. I call them mediocre because just because you sell a lot of books and get yourself on lots of tv shows does not make you a good historian. The intertwining treaties that tied Europe in knots guaranteed that once a war started all of them would be involved.

The old saying that winners write a wars history is never more perfectly shown then WW1. The truth will probably take another 2-300 years to be finally accepted.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

from the thread title alone, i knew this was gonna be about the start of WW1

 

[MichaelWinicki]

from the thread title alone, i knew this was gonna be about the start of WW1

An argument could be made that it's also about the start of WW2.

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

Another event that happened around the same time. July 1914, Mahatma Gandhi left South Africa forever and returned to India in July 1914. Some men begin war, while a man in India started the process of the human rights movement that would tickle down all over the world and into the USA.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

There were many reasons for that war and all those that started it are to blame; the stupidity and arrogance that France and England showed trying to blame Germany for it completely merely ensured another war in 20 years.

Agreed that the Treaty of Versailles might as well have been titled "The Document that Ends one World War and Starts Another."

This one provision, "Germany [to] accept the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage" during the war, was simply over the top. France wanted nothing more than to rub Germany's nose in it due to the beat-down they took at the hands of the Prussians in 1870-71.

And it did nothing but leave a lot of hurt feelings over the next 20 years.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

An argument could be made that it's also about the start of WW2.

very true. over sanctions on germany after WW1 led to their being overburdened, and some might say "forced" to start WW2

 

[MichaelWinicki]

very true. over sanctions on germany after WW1 led to their being overburdened, and some might say "forced" to start WW2

There's been some revisionist history over the years where some historians have painted a totally opposite picture, i.e. that the treaty and treatment of Germany after WWI, ended up benefitting the country, which there may be some technical truth to that, the average German at the time would probably tell you that they (Germany) got a royal screwing by the French and were pizzed-off because of it– and it this case perceptions were reality, at least for the German people. They felt taken advantage of.

 

[zrinkill]

Fantastic post

 

[Nomad]

I have always been extra interested in WW1. I think because it"s a lot less explored than say the Civil and Revolutionary Wars or WW2.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I have always been extra interested in WW1. I think because it"s a lot less explored than say the Civil and Revolutionary Wars or WW2.

It's only been over the past decade or so that I've grown more interested in WWI. And really what dragged me in was the realization on how much the geography of the world changed from 1914 to 1919. The countries that came & went. The empires that came and went. The new countries that came about. The problems in Iraq and the Balkans? Have direct ancestry to what happened in WWI.

 

[DallasEast]

I have always wondered how Russia would have fared during World War I if not for their prior conflict with Japan. The Russians received a severe butt-kicking during the Russo-Japanese War at the turn of the 20th Century. The country had not even remotely recovered from that war before WWI broke out. Eventually, Bolchevicks (sp?) and other revolutionaries used WWI as the ignition for internal civil wars that ended in communist rule.

Could a stronger Russia had better defended itself from European aggression? Would Nicholas II been able to stave off the revolutionary movement and remained in power? Could the century's Cold War have come about if Nicholas had not started the domino effect by originally confronting Japan before WWI? Who knows? I wonder if any century to come will have as much global change for humanity happen within them as much as the 20th century endured.

 

[burmafrd]

There's been some revisionist history over the years where some historians have painted a totally opposite picture, i.e. that the treaty and treatment of Germany after WWI, ended up benefitting the country, which there may be some technical truth to that, the average German at the time would probably tell you that they (Germany) got a royal screwing by the French and were pizzed-off because of it– and it this case perceptions were reality, at least for the German people. They felt taken advantage of.

they were. They accepted the Armistice with the proviso that the treaty would be based on Wilson's 14 Points. And that did not happen.

 

[burmafrd]

It's only been over the past decade or so that I've grown more interested in WWI. And really what dragged me in was the realization on how much the geography of the world changed from 1914 to 1919. The countries that came & went. The empires that came and went. The new countries that came about. The problems in Iraq and the Balkans? Have direct ancestry to what happened in WWI.

And the middle east as well. In many ways August of 1914 was the end of Europe as it was. And for much of the rest of the world as well.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

And the middle east as well. In many ways August of 1914 was the end of Europe as it was. And for much of the rest of the world as well.

I agree with that. Europe as it was for centuries really.

If someone wanted to say 1914 was the start of the modern age... They would have a compelling argument.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I have always wondered how Russia would have fared during World War I if not for their prior conflict with Japan. The Russians received a severe butt-kicking during the Russo-Japanese War at the turn of the 20th Century. The country had not even remotely recovered from that war before WWI broke out. Eventually, Bolchevicks (sp?) and other revolutionaries used WWI as the ignition for internal civil wars that ended in communist rule.

Could a stronger Russia had better defended itself from European aggression? Would Nicholas II been able to stave off the revolutionary movement and remained in power? Could the century's Cold War have come about if Nicholas had not started the domino effect by originally confronting Japan before WWI? Who knows? I wonder if any century to come will have as much global change for humanity happen within them as much as the 20th century endured.

You make some interesting points about Russia, pre-USSR. I don't know what to think. Militarily Russia and then the USSR was all over the map for most of the 20th century.

They were utterly dominant on the Eastern Front from summer '43 on.

Yet they were cuffed about by the Japanese in 1905. They were beaten in Afghanistan, and fought to an almost draw with that military power Finland.

And they were almost knocked out of WWII by Germany and their showing against Germany and Austria-Hungary in WWI wasn't anything to write home about.

 

[jobberone]

I have always wondered how Russia would have fared during World War I if not for their prior conflict with Japan. The Russians received a severe butt-kicking during the Russo-Japanese War at the turn of the 20th Century. The country had not even remotely recovered from that war before WWI broke out. Eventually, Bolchevicks (sp?) and other revolutionaries used WWI as the ignition for internal civil wars that ended in communist rule.

Could a stronger Russia had better defended itself from European aggression? Would Nicholas II been able to stave off the revolutionary movement and remained in power? Could the century's Cold War have come about if Nicholas had not started the domino effect by originally confronting Japan before WWI? Who knows? I wonder if any century to come will have as much global change for humanity happen within them as much as the 20th century endured.

And had the Russians stayed out of China and the warm water seaport of Port Arthur then the Japanese might have stayed out of it although I have doubts; the timeline may have been different though. The Japanese had designs on Korea and Manchuria primarily Korea. The Russians had long been after gains in Manchuria and a desire to have a warm seaport to operate out of. If the Russians had agreed to give Japan dominion over Korea then that war wouldn't have happened then.

If you add in the fact the Germans were in Qingdao for their own warm seaport then you can see more complications in the alliances and interests during that time. They all wanted control of the Bo Hai and to be able to influence the Yellow Sea area.

 

[jobberone]

You make some interesting points about Russia, pre-USSR. I don't know what to think. Militarily Russia and then the USSR was all over the map for most of the 20th century.

They were utterly dominant on the Eastern Front from summer '43 on.

Yet they were cuffed about by the Japanese in 1905. They were beaten in Afghanistan, and fought to an almost draw with that military power Finland.

And they were almost knocked out of WWII by Germany and their showing against Germany and Austria-Hungary in WWI wasn't anything to write home about.

They might not have gone into Eastern Europe without our help either. They flew a lot of our airplanes etc. I at least think we would have gotten to Berlin before they gained so much territory and influence in Eastern Europe.

They should have listened to Patton.