100 years ago today Franz Ferdinand was assassinated (1 Viewer)

[Prince Myshkin]

:whoosh:

I saw your point(s), I was just adding to it, I hope. I don't think it was greed, and I agree it was complex, but there were some straightforward reasons and causes, starting with Wilhelm, nationalism and ethnicity/religion.

Ahh...the greed part was in response to comment about us going to war today for money/oil. i wasn't saying WWI was mainly about greed. I was merely stating that there have been wars fought for money/resources throughout history (as well as for those other reasons you mentioned).

 

[FBG26]

Franz Ferdinand, who was the nephew of the Austro-Hungarian emperor, was killed by a group called the Black Hand. And because they were a Serbian nationalist society, the empire declared war on Serbia. Then Russia, which was bound by a treaty, was forced to mobilize, which meant that Germany had to declare war on Russia. Then France declared war on Germany, and that was World War I. Because the emperor's nephew was killed.

Nobody had to do anything. They could have all let Serbia slug it out like they had in 1908-12 - and in the 1990's - without much intervention.

Germany/Prussia and Russia were actually allied for decades, it was Wilhelm who blew up that agreement around the turn of the century.

Wilhelm might be ahead of Hitler and Stalin in terms of being the biggest villain of the last 2 centuries, so much horror, including Hitler and Stalin happened because of his awful, purposeful decisions.

Yea, I was just quoting The West Wing.

 

[MC Gas Money]

Franz Ferdinand, who was the nephew of the Austro-Hungarian emperor, was killed by a group called the Black Hand. And because they were a Serbian nationalist society, the empire declared war on Serbia. Then Russia, which was bound by a treaty, was forced to mobilize, which meant that Germany had to declare war on Russia. Then France declared war on Germany, and that was World War I. Because the emperor's nephew was killed.

Germany did not "have to" declare war on Russia - they wanted to.

I believe they were bound by treaty, but I would have to look it up

They were.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Franz Ferdinand, who was the nephew of the Austro-Hungarian emperor, was killed by a group called the Black Hand. And because they were a Serbian nationalist society, the empire declared war on Serbia. Then Russia, which was bound by a treaty, was forced to mobilize, which meant that Germany had to declare war on Russia. Then France declared war on Germany, and that was World War I. Because the emperor's nephew was killed.

Germany did not "have to" declare war on Russia - they wanted to.

I believe they were bound by treaty, but I would have to look it up

They were.

Things moved slowly back then. Negotiations lased more than a month. Germany asked Russia to back off, which Russia did indeed offer to do, they had merely mobilized. When Russia offered to negotiate and back down, Wilhelm declared war. Russia never attacked before Germany declared war.

 

[Guest]

The assassination was clearly a severe case of mustache envy.

 

[Eephus]

I've heard the opinion that at some point in the future, WWs 1& 2 may be considered two halves of the same war, because many of the enemy combatants remained the same, but the sides needed a generation to refill their armies. Personally, I can see it because Hitler took power at least in part because Germany had lots of debt because of having to pay the victors from the first war.

And Germany was made to feel inferior which opened up the path for a charismatic nationalist to fill the Void by saying theyre the master race. The end of WW1 and the punitive damages placed on Germany were at least partially to blame for Hitlers rise.

A lot of the blame for the scale of WWI and then WWII falls right in France's lap.

I don't think France deserves that much blame for WWI. They were just as treaty bound as the other powers but didn't mobilize until after Germany mobilized and moved troops to the Belgian frontier. The Schieffen plan was a direct threat to France and forced France into a defensive posture. Any country could have de-escalated during July and August 1914 but none did. It doesn't make sense to single out France in this regard.

WWII is a similar story. The Allies aren't totally blameless for the conditions leading to the rise of Hitler but Germany was more obviously the aggressor in 1939 than in 1914.

 

[Mario Kart]

It's about time this debate gets hammered out. World's Greatest Draft saw Princip picked... by yours truly. Guy caused a lot of harm in the world and I had the foresight to bring the masses his carnage story. Guy is still a d-bag but one we should, sadly, have to know about.

On the eve of the centennial, Bosnian Serbs unveiled a statue to Gavrilo Princip, the archduke's killer, who is considered a Serbian hero and freedom-fighter

11.01 - Gavrilo Princip

Gavrilo Princip (Cyrillic: Гаврило Принцип, IPA: [gaʋ'ri:lɔ 'prinʦip]) (July 25, 1894 – April 28, 1918) was a Yugoslav nationalist associated with the freedom movement Mlada Bosna.[1] Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914.[2] Princip and his accomplices were arrested and implicated a number of members of the Serbian Military, leading Austria-Hungary to issue a démarche to Serbia known as the July Ultimatum.[3] This set off a chain of events that led to World War I.[4]

Princip attempted suicide first by ingesting cyanide, and then with the use of his pistol. But he vomited the past-date poison (as did Čabrinović, leading the police to believe the group had been deceived and bought a much weaker poison). The pistol was wrestled from his hand before he had a chance to fire another shot.

Princip was too young to receive the death penalty, being twenty-seven days short of his twentieth birthday at the time of the assassination. Instead, he received the maximum sentence of twenty years in prison. He was held in harsh conditions which were worsened by the war. He died of tuberculosis[2] on April 28, 1918 at Theresienstadt (a place which later became infamous as a Nazi concentration camp). At the time of his death, Princip weighed around 40 kilograms (88 lb. or 6.5 stones), weakened by malnutrition, blood loss, and disease.

The house where Gavrilo Princip lived in Sarajevo was destroyed during the First World War. After the war, it became a museum in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was conquered by Germany in 1941 and Sarajevo became part of fascist Croatia. The Croatian fascists destroyed the house again. The Yugoslav communists under Tito established a communist Yugoslavia in 1944. The house of Gavrilo Princip became a museum again and there was another museum dedicated to him within the city of Sarajevo. During the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, the house of Gavrilo Princip was destroyed a third time by the government; no attempts to rebuild it have yet been announced. The Gavrilo Princip museum has been turned into a museum dedicated to Archduke Ferdinand and the Habsburg monarchy. Prior to the 1990s the site on the pavement on which Princip stood to fire the fatal shots was marked by embossed footprints. These were removed as a consequence of the 1992-5 war in Bosnia and the perception of Princip as having been a Serb nationalist. Later, a simple wooden memorial was placed near the site of the assassination with the words "May Peace Prevail on Earth" in Bosnian, Serbian and English.

Unwittingly, he is one of the most influential people in 20th century history, being indirectly responsible for sparking the chain of events that led to both World Wars.[6] [7]

 

[timschochet]

It's the ultimate idiotic war. Unlike our Civil War or World War II, there are no interesting generals and very few interesting battles, which is why it doesn't get the attention those two wars do. Just a whole lot of commanders stupidly throwing regiment after regiment into sausage machines of death, as at the Somme, where 30,000 men died in a few hours and gained no ground.

In 1864 Robert E Lee predicted World War I, after Gettysburg, by showing how a little barbed wire and trenches could stop infantry in its tracks. What's amazing is that none of the European generals paid attention- they still believed in the mass attack. It want until the end of the war, at Amiens, that Churchill's tanks demonstrated how yo break the stalemate. And yet the Allies learned nothing from that, and we're stunned when Hitler turned the lesson against them in 1940.

 

[MC Gas Money]

The british used to put pee soaked rags on their faces during chlorine gas attacks.

Thats pretty interesting.

 

[Christo]

Of all of the freaky things about WWI the one that's the freakiest to me is the mining warfare.

 

[Eephus]

It's the ultimate idiotic war. Unlike our Civil War or World War II, there are no interesting generals and very few interesting battles, which is why it doesn't get the attention those two wars do. Just a whole lot of commanders stupidly throwing regiment after regiment into sausage machines of death, as at the Somme, where 30,000 men died in a few hours and gained no ground.

It gets little attention in this country because the USA was a bit player in the conflict. Ironically, this country ended up as a big winner because it managed to miss years of carnage.

It's a definite first rounder in the great idiotic war draft but I wouldn't pick it at 1.01

 

[Eephus]

Of all of the freaky things about WWI the one that's the freakiest to me is the mining warfare.

The tunnels under the Somme battlefield is an interesting story

 

[Mario Kart]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRcKpWZOalo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq8A_8gUc3Y

 

[Mjolnirs]

30 minutes to go in the day I just realized this and then saw this thread.

Too many people don't know enough about WWI history.

 

[Christo]

Of all of the freaky things about WWI the one that's the freakiest to me is the mining warfare.

The tunnels under the Somme battlefield is an interesting story

Cool. I hadn't seen that one before.

 

[cstu]

I've heard the opinion that at some point in the future, WWs 1& 2 may be considered two halves of the same war, because many of the enemy combatants remained the same, but the sides needed a generation to refill their armies. Personally, I can see it because Hitler took power at least in part because Germany had lots of debt because of having to pay the victors from the first war.

And Germany was made to feel inferior which opened up the path for a charismatic nationalist to fill the Void by saying theyre the master race. The end of WW1 and the punitive damages placed on Germany were at least partially to blame for Hitlers rise.

A lot of the blame for the scale of WWI and then WWII falls right in France's lap.

I don't think France deserves that much blame for WWI. They were just as treaty bound as the other powers but didn't mobilize until after Germany mobilized and moved troops to the Belgian frontier. The Schieffen plan was a direct threat to France and forced France into a defensive posture. Any country could have de-escalated during July and August 1914 but none did. It doesn't make sense to single out France in this regard.

WWII is a similar story. The Allies aren't totally blameless for the conditions leading to the rise of Hitler but Germany was more obviously the aggressor in 1939 than in 1914.

Germany deserves most of the blame but France wanted Alsace/Lorraine back and to knock down Germany, which had become too powerful after the Franco-Prussian War.

To defend Germany's actions, I think they did what they had to do. With France allied with Russia and signing an Entente with their historical enemy the UK it easy to see that France, Russia and the UK could have started a war against Germany and won. Russia at that time was modernizing its army and soon the Schlieffen Plan would be impossible.

Russia deserves blame since they decided to mobilize their troops and provoke Germany to attack. Yes, they had a treaty but they didn't have to defend Serbia.

 

[bentley]

Guy totally foreshadowed it in his last speech before the event when he said

I say don't you know?

You say you don't know

I say take me out

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I did not history when I was younger but I find it more interesting today. WWI helped Team USA to become the #1 superpower of the world.

 

[Eephus]

I've heard the opinion that at some point in the future, WWs 1& 2 may be considered two halves of the same war, because many of the enemy combatants remained the same, but the sides needed a generation to refill their armies. Personally, I can see it because Hitler took power at least in part because Germany had lots of debt because of having to pay the victors from the first war.

And Germany was made to feel inferior which opened up the path for a charismatic nationalist to fill the Void by saying theyre the master race. The end of WW1 and the punitive damages placed on Germany were at least partially to blame for Hitlers rise.

A lot of the blame for the scale of WWI and then WWII falls right in France's lap.

I don't think France deserves that much blame for WWI. They were just as treaty bound as the other powers but didn't mobilize until after Germany mobilized and moved troops to the Belgian frontier. The Schieffen plan was a direct threat to France and forced France into a defensive posture. Any country could have de-escalated during July and August 1914 but none did. It doesn't make sense to single out France in this regard.

WWII is a similar story. The Allies aren't totally blameless for the conditions leading to the rise of Hitler but Germany was more obviously the aggressor in 1939 than in 1914.

Germany deserves most of the blame but France wanted Alsace/Lorraine back and to knock down Germany, which had become too powerful after the Franco-Prussian War.

To defend Germany's actions, I think they did what they had to do. With France allied with Russia and signing an Entente with their historical enemy the UK it easy to see that France, Russia and the UK could have started a war against Germany and won. Russia at that time was modernizing its army and soon the Schlieffen Plan would be impossible.

Russia deserves blame since they decided to mobilize their troops and provoke Germany to attack. Yes, they had a treaty but they didn't have to defend Serbia.

None of the great powers were blameless. The month between the assassination and Austria's declaration of war on Serbia was a huge failure of diplomacy. There were opportunities to defuse the situation and there was pathetically little meaningful discussion between the countries.

The fact that such a minor regional event sent Europe over the brink lends credence to the idea that Princip and FF weren't important. If Sarajevo didn't happen, some other spark would have.

 

[Andrew74]

Just found @RealTimeWWI on Twitter. Pretty cool.

 

[Guest]

Pretty good stuff in this thread. I had no idea about the cousins aspect.

Watched The Real Kaiser Bill which I thought was interesting.

 

[Eephus]

Pretty good stuff in this thread. I had no idea about the cousins aspect.

Watched The Real Kaiser Bill which I thought was interesting.

The mothers of George V and Nicholas II were sisters from the Royal House of Denmark: Princesses Alexandra and Dagmar. The Danish provinces of Schleswig and Holstein were annexed by Bismarck in the 1860s. There's speculation that this influences the anti-German sentiments of the British and Russian monarchs.

 

[CBusAlex]

So, the Ukraine thread got me thinking... would the world have been better or worse off today if Austria's response to Ferdinand's murder was merely some saber rattling and economic sanctions?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So, the Ukraine thread got me thinking... would the world have been better or worse off today if Austria's response to Ferdinand's murder was merely some saber rattling and economic sanctions?

BETTER.

We are still living in a post World War I world.

 

[Mjolnirs]

German soldiers preserved in World War I shelter discovered after nearly 100 years

 

[Jack White]

I just happened to be listening to some Stefan Molyneux stuff earlier today when I saw this thread.

He makes the case that the world wars really were a single war with a 20-year detente.

Warning: this in NOT what you learned in your government school history books.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I just happened to be listening to some Stefan Molyneux stuff earlier today when I saw this thread.

He makes the case that the world wars really were a single war with a 20-year detente.

Warning: this in NOT what you learned in your government school history books.

I'm not sure that's an entirely revolutionary idea actually...

 

[Mario Kart]

I just happened to be listening to some Stefan Molyneux stuff earlier today when I saw this thread.

He makes the case that the world wars really were a single war with a 20-year detente.

Warning: this in

I'll wait to agree or disagree depending on what Tim says. In Tim I trust.

 

[cstu]

I've heard the opinion that at some point in the future, WWs 1& 2 may be considered two halves of the same war, because many of the enemy combatants remained the same, but the sides needed a generation to refill their armies. Personally, I can see it because Hitler took power at least in part because Germany had lots of debt because of having to pay the victors from the first war.

And Germany was made to feel inferior which opened up the path for a charismatic nationalist to fill the Void by saying theyre the master race. The end of WW1 and the punitive damages placed on Germany were at least partially to blame for Hitlers rise.

A lot of the blame for the scale of WWI and then WWII falls right in France's lap.

I don't think France deserves that much blame for WWI. They were just as treaty bound as the other powers but didn't mobilize until after Germany mobilized and moved troops to the Belgian frontier. The Schieffen plan was a direct threat to France and forced France into a defensive posture. Any country could have de-escalated during July and August 1914 but none did. It doesn't make sense to single out France in this regard.

WWII is a similar story. The Allies aren't totally blameless for the conditions leading to the rise of Hitler but Germany was more obviously the aggressor in 1939 than in 1914.

Germany deserves most of the blame but France wanted Alsace/Lorraine back and to knock down Germany, which had become too powerful after the Franco-Prussian War.

To defend Germany's actions, I think they did what they had to do. With France allied with Russia and signing an Entente with their historical enemy the UK it easy to see that France, Russia and the UK could have started a war against Germany and won. Russia at that time was modernizing its army and soon the Schlieffen Plan would be impossible.

Russia deserves blame since they decided to mobilize their troops and provoke Germany to attack. Yes, they had a treaty but they didn't have to defend Serbia.

None of the great powers were blameless. The month between the assassination and Austria's declaration of war on Serbia was a huge failure of diplomacy. There were opportunities to defuse the situation and there was pathetically little meaningful discussion between the countries.

The fact that such a minor regional event sent Europe over the brink lends credence to the idea that Princip and FF weren't important. If Sarajevo didn't happen, some other spark would have.

Agreed - everything was ready to be set in motion. It was a prisoner's dilemma - if Germany didn't go to war then their enemies find a reason to go to war and beat them. Diplomacy was not going to work because Russia and France could promise all the peace they want but Germany could never trust them.

 

[cstu]

So, the Ukraine thread got me thinking... would the world have been better or worse off today if Austria's response to Ferdinand's murder was merely some saber rattling and economic sanctions?

BETTER.

We are still living in a post World War I world.

It's impossible to say. If WW1 didn't start when it did then it would have started a decade later. It's very possible Hitler would have ended up a lousy painter but imagine if Hitler (or someone like him) was able to develop the nuclear bomb prior to the start of WW2. Things easily could have been much worse today.

 

[T Bell]

I've heard the opinion that at some point in the future, WWs 1& 2 may be considered two halves of the same war, because many of the enemy combatants remained the same, but the sides needed a generation to refill their armies. Personally, I can see it because Hitler took power at least in part because Germany had lots of debt because of having to pay the victors from the first war.

WW1, it's carnage, the impact it had on the psyche of Europe and the Treaty of Versailles had a huge role in allowing fascism to take hold. I wouldn't say they were the same war though. One was a war over which competing, but similar old world empires would survive into the new world. WW2 was about what the new world would look like. Was it democracy or fascism that would lead the way into the future? Was it persons all freedom or a totalitarian state that would dominate the future?

There's a theory that the approximately 300 years of more or less continuous warfare in Europe starting with the Thirty Years War and ending with WWII. The common theme was of course the Great Powers but also the French-German/Austrian rivalry, with Great Britain throwing in with the weaker side to balance things out.